Case of Zoletic and Others v. Azerbaijan Art.4

FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF ZOLETIC AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 20116/12)
JUDGMENT
Art 4 • Positive obligations • Domestic authorities’ failure to institute and

conduct an effective investigation into migrant workers’ arguable claims of
cross-border human trafficking and forced labour
STRASBOURG
7 October 2021
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
ZOLETIC AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT
In the case of Zoletic and Others v. Azerbaijan,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Síofra O’Leary, President,
Mārtiņš Mits,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Lətif Hüseynov,
Jovan Ilievski,
Ivana Jelić,
Mattias Guyomar, judges,
and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 20116/12) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged
with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by
thirty-three Bosnia and Herzegovina nationals whose names are listed in the
Appendix (“the applicants”), on 22 March 2012;
the decision to give notice to the Azerbaijani Government (“the
Government”) of the complaints under Articles 4 § 2 and 6 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and to declare
inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the
observations in reply submitted by the applicants;
the comments submitted by the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina
who had exercised their right to intervene in the case (under Article 36 § 1
of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 (b) of the Rules of Court);
Having deliberated in private on 14 September 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns the alleged failure by the respondent State to
conduct an effective investigation into the applicants’ complaints that they
had been victims of forced or compulsory labour and trafficking in human
beings and the alleged failure by the domestic authorities and courts to
deliver reasoned decisions to protect the applicants’ pecuniary interests, in
breach of Articles 4 § 2 and 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 to the Convention.
THE FACTS
2. The applicants’ personal details are set out in the Appendix. The
applicants were represented by Mr M. Bakhishov, a lawyer practising in
Azerbaijan at the time of lodging the application.
1
3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov.

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised
as follows.
A. The applicants’ stay in Azerbaijan
1. The applicants’ version of the events

5. According to the applicants, they were recruited in Bosnia and
Herzegovina and taken to Azerbaijan, in groups of ten or more, as
temporary foreign construction workers, by representatives of Serbaz
Design and Construction LLC (“Serbaz”), which, according to the material
in the case file, was a company registered in Azerbaijan in 2007 and active
in the construction sector until approximately the end of 2009 (see
paragraphs 25, 47, 57, 102-103 and 107 below). Most of the applicants
stayed in Azerbaijan for periods of six months or longer. The applicants did
not specify the exact dates of arrival in and departure from Azerbaijan of
each applicant.
6. Serbaz arranged their travel to Azerbaijan by air on the basis of tourist
visas, issued on arrival at the Baku airport for periods of thirty days or
more. Once they entered Azerbaijan, their passports were taken away by
representatives of Serbaz. No individual work permits for them were
obtained from the authorities.
7. While in Baku, the applicants lived in five houses transformed into
dormitories, in rooms with bunk beds shared by twelve to twenty-four
people. The dormitories were not equipped with drinking water, running hot
water, gas or heating. The conditions were unsanitary owing to the
accumulation of garbage. The applicants were not provided with medical
care. They had to comply with strict internal rules established by Serbaz.
Notices about those rules, written in their native language, were posted on
the walls and doors of the dormitories. While the applicants themselves did
not provide a detailed account of all those rules, they noted that they had
been taken to work and back by a bus and, at other times, had not been
allowed to leave their accommodation without a special written permission
issued by representatives of Serbaz. Violations of rules were punished by
fines, beatings, detention in “a specially designated place” and physical
threats.
8. The applicants worked in the construction of several buildings in
Baku, including Buta Palace, the Baku Expo Centre and 28 Mall. Some
people brought by Serbaz worked in the construction of the Kur Olympics
educational and training centre in Mingechevir, commissioned by the
Ministry of Youth and Sports.
9. As from May 2009 the applicants were not paid any wages and could
not meet the necessities of life. According to them, each worker was
deprived of approximately 10,000 US Dollars (USD) in wages.
2
10. In support of their submissions made to the Court, the applicants

submitted a copy of a report prepared by three NGOs from different
countries named ASTRA (Serbia), La Strada (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and
Cooperation for Social Development (Croatia), in cooperation with an
Azerbaijani NGO named the Azerbaijan Migration Centre (Azərbaycan
Miqrasiya Mərkəzi – “AMC”), published on 27 November 2009 (“the
ASTRA Report”). The contents of the ASTRA Report are summarised in
paragraphs 101-117 below.
11. The applicants also submitted a copy of a letter by the Danish
Refugee Council of 22 October 2010, addressed to AMC, which stated that
in November 2009 the Danish Refugee Council had delivered humanitarian
aid, including mostly groceries and other aid, the total value of which was
6,899 Azerbaijani manats (AZN), to migrants from Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Serbia and North Macedonia. It specified that the aid had been
funded by the International Organisation for Migration, whose
representatives, along with the representatives of AMC, participated in the
process of delivery of the aid to the migrants.
2. The Government’s submissions concerning the events relating to the

applicants’ stay in Azerbaijan
12. Without presenting their own version of the events, the Government
challenged the veracity of the applicants’ factual statements, noting that
there was no evidence substantiating their allegations and proving “the
existence” of those facts.
3. The applicants’ departure from Azerbaijan

13. Neither the applicants, nor the Government provided any account of
the circumstances in which the applicants departed from Azerbaijan.
14. It appears from the material in the case file that in October 2009
several NGOs, including AMC and the three NGOs from the Balkans
mentioned in paragraph 10 above, became aware of the applicants’ alleged
situation and their grievances concerning Serbaz.
15. It appears that on 22 October 2009 and at an unspecified later date
AMC sent letters to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor
General’s Office concerning the situation of Serbaz workers, but received
no response (see paragraphs 36-39 below for more detail).
16. It further appears that in October and November 2009 Serbaz paid at
least part of the accrued unpaid wages to the workers who were at that time
in Azerbaijan, took them to the Baku international airport in groups, handed
back their passports and arranged their return to their respective home
countries by air. By the end of November 2009, all of the applicants had left
Azerbaijan.
3
B. Judicial proceedings instituted by the applicants in Azerbaijan
17. After the applicants’ return to Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Mr M. Bakhishov was hired to act as their representative in Azerbaijan.
1. First-instance proceedings
18. On 19 July 2010 Mr Bakhishov lodged, on behalf of the applicants, a
civil claim against Serbaz with the Sabail District Court seeking payment to
each applicant of USD 10,000 in unpaid wages and USD 5,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage caused by alleged “breaches of their rights and
freedoms”. In their claim, they cited a number of provisions of the
Constitution, the Labour Code and the Civil Code on, inter alia, protection
of human rights and labour rights of foreigners, and prohibition of forced
labour and compensation for damages. They also referred to Article 4 of the
Convention.
19. The length of the applicants’ factual submissions spanned around
one page of typed text. In particular, they made essentially the same
submissions as those subsequently made before the Court (see paragraphs
5-9 above). In addition, they mentioned one alleged incident involving one
Serbaz worker which had occurred in December 2008, noting that this
particular worker, M.V., had been fined USD 500 by a Serbaz employee
Y. (identified by first name only), for having brought some (apparently
unauthorised) food items to Baku, and that subsequently Serbaz officials,
B.V. and R.L., had confined him for three days inside a building under
construction. The applicants further noted that, because they had not been
paid their wages since May 2009, they had to buy groceries on credit and
had thus become indebted to nearby shops and that “those of them who
[had] objected to this situation [had been] punished”. Owing to this
situation, they had been provided various humanitarian aid by the Danish
Refugee Council, the OSCE Baku office, the Baku office of the
International Organisation for Migration, ASTRA and AMC.
20. It appears from the copy of the applicants’ civil claim available in
the case file that the documentary evidence submitted together with the
claim consisted only of copies of passports of twenty-nine of the applicants
(all applicants except applicants nos. 7, 10, 13 and 31 in the Appendix). All
of those copies showed the main pages of the passports with the bearers’
names, photographs and dates of birth, dates of issue and expiry of the
passports, passport numbers and so on, while fourteen of the copies also
showed the page with the legible Azerbaijani visa (those fourteen copies
concerned applicants nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 33
in the Appendix). Of these, the visas issued to applicants nos. 14, 21 and 24,
Muamer Kahric, Fehret Mustafica and Drago Peric, were single-entry visas
valid for three months and issued in May 2009 or later. The visas issued to
applicants nos. 15 and 16, Miodrag Kaurin and Predrag Kaurin, were
4
multiple-entry visas valid for one year and issued in August 2009 and July
2009 respectively. All other visas were single-entry visas valid for one
month. Out of these, the visa to applicant no. 18, Sabahudin Makic, was
issued in October 2008, while all other visas were issued in May 2009 or
later. In addition to the above fourteen copies, copies of two other passports
also depicted what might have been an Azerbaijani visa, however these two
copies were not fully legible. In so far as legible, a one-month visa to
applicant no. 23, Elvedin Opardija, might have been issued in March 2009,
while a one-month visa to applicant no. 32, Goran Vujatovic, might have
been issued in June 2008. Out of the remaining thirteen copies of passports
which did not include copies of visas, four included pages with Serbian or
Croatian border exit and/or entry stamps, corresponding to various months
of 2009. The remaining nine copies of passports did not include either
copies of pages with visas or border entry or exit stamps.
21. No other evidence or documents, such as any NGOs reports, was
listed as evidence submitted in support of the claim. In respect of such other
evidence submitted before the first-instance court, the applicants’
representative noted, in his submissions before the Court as well in his
subsequent appeal before the Baku Court of Appeal (see paragraph 29
below), that during the first-instance proceedings he had attempted to
present to the court a copy of the ASTRA Report and that he had also
formally requested the court to send inquiries to the above-mentioned
NGOs and international organisations which had provided aid to Serbaz
workers before their departure from Azerbaijan. However, according to the
lawyer, the court refused to admit the ASTRA Report and rejected his other
request (no copies of any interim decisions concerning those requests are
available in the case file).
22. The defendant, Serbaz, was represented by a lawyer who submitted
that, for the purposes of several large-scale and important construction
projects in Azerbaijan, Serbaz had invited a number of foreign workers
pursuant to a secondment agreement concluded on 14 May 2007 with its
parent company, Acora Business Ltd (“Acora”), a company registered in
Anguilla, British West Indies. Seconded workers had been employees of
Acora, which had been responsible for payment of their wages and all other
employment-related matters. Under the secondment agreement, Serbaz had
been responsible only for providing them with accommodation and meals.
The lawyer of Serbaz argued that the applicants’ claims against Serbaz in
respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage were unsubstantiated.
23. In support of its submissions, Serbaz presented to the court
uncertified photocopies of its charter and the secondment agreement
between Acora and Serbaz (not available in the case file). It explained that it
was no longer in possession of the originals of those documents, because
those documents had been “taken away” from Serbaz by the Acora
management and had not been returned. In this connection, Serbaz also
5
submitted a copy of the announcement it had placed in the Vergiler

newspaper, published on 28 July 2010 (several days after the applicants had
lodged their claim – see paragraph 18 above). The announcement stated that
the originals of Serbaz’s founding document (charter) and tax identification
certificate had been lost and were therefore no longer valid.
24. On 21 October 2010 the Sabail District Court dismissed the
applicants’ claim.
25. The court noted that, according to the registration certificate issued
by the Ministry of Justice, Serbaz had been registered in Azerbaijan on
16 March 2007. According to the copy of its charter, it was a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Acora, which had been registered in Anguilla on 30 June
2006. Following the loss of the original of the charter, on 11 August 2010
the Baku City Tax Department re-issued to Serbaz certified copies of its
“founding documents”. The court had further regard to the copy of the
secondment agreement of 14 May 2007 between Acora and Serbaz, which
stated that Acora undertook to second staff to Serbaz for maximum terms of
three months. According to the secondment agreement, the seconded staff
were considered to be employees of Acora, which was responsible for
paying their wages.
26. The court further referred to letters by various authorities, in
particular (as summarised in the court’s judgment):
(i) a letter of 19 November 2009 of the Ministry of Taxes, addressed to
AMC, where it was stated that Serbaz had submitted tax declarations in the
years 2006 to 2009 in respect of the amounts paid for “hired labour”.
However, that form of declaration did not provide for a name-by-name
breakdown of taxes paid in respect of each worker;
(ii) a letter of 17 December 2009 of the Department on Combating
Trafficking in Human Beings of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the
Anti-Trafficking Department”), where the latter stated that, at an
unspecified time, it had reviewed a request by citizens of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Serbia and North Macedonia working at Serbaz, complaining
that they had been subjected to human trafficking. However, because the
last workers had left Azerbaijan by 26 November 2009, after having
received from the company a final settlement of due wages, it had not been
possible to investigate their complaints; and
(iii) a letter of 22 December 2009 by the Commissioner for Human
Rights (Ombudsman), noting that Serbaz had carried out construction work
at various development and construction projects of State significance, that
according to information provided by Serbaz it had become necessary to lay
off a number of workers owing to the company’s difficult financial
situation, and that those workers who had wished to return to their home
countries had been paid accrued wages due to them and had been repatriated
in a planned manner.
6
27. Based on the above, the court found that the applicants had been
directly employed by Acora and could not be considered as employees of
Serbaz, that their wages were to be paid by Acora, that they had been
merely seconded to Serbaz, that there had been no employment contracts
signed between the applicants and Serbaz, and that the applicants had not
presented any evidence to the contrary. Therefore, Serbaz could not be
liable for any alleged non-payment of wages or other employment-related
complaints. As a limited liability company, neither was it liable for the
obligations of its parent company before third persons. Accordingly, the
applicants’ claim against Serbaz had neither a statutory, nor a contractual
basis, and the claim could be lodged only against Acora.
28. Lastly, the court held that the applicants’ allegations concerning
violations of their rights and freedoms were unsubstantiated. It noted that, as
it had appeared from the above-mentioned letters of various State
authorities, it had not been possible to establish that any rights or freedoms
of foreign workers had been breached by Serbaz.
2. Appellate and cassation proceedings

29. On 1 December 2010 (with an addendum on 24 January 2011) the
applicants’ lawyer lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment,
essentially reiterating the previous submissions. In addition, he made, inter
alia, the following factual and legal submissions:
(i) before the applicants’ departure from Azerbaijan, they had received
aid (foodstuffs and medical and other aid) from various international
organisations and NGOs mentioned above. He noted that he had lodged a
request with the first-instance court to send inquiries to those organisations
in order to confirm this fact and to obtain information about the aid
provided, however the request had been rejected;
(ii) he had attempted to submit the ASTRA Report to the first-instance
court as evidence, but the court had refused to admit it without any
substantiation;
(iii) the fact that the applicants had stayed and worked in Azerbaijan on
the basis of tourist visas and without work permits had been in breach of the
domestic law, in particular the legislation on tourism, and indicated that
they had been subjected to forced labour;
(iv) in fact, the applicants had been employees of Serbaz, and not of
Acora, and Serbaz had unlawfully subjected them to forced labour without
having signed employment contracts in accordance with the requirements of
the Constitution, the Labour Code, the Law on labour migration, other
Azerbaijani legislation, as well as the international treaties to which
Azerbaijan was a party. In this respect, AMC had also inquired from the
Ministry of Justice (the authority responsible for registration of legal
entities) whether Acora “had really existed” as a company, but had received
no reply; and
7
(v) the first-instance court’s reliance on copies of documents submitted

by Serbaz, including the uncertified copy of the secondment agreement, was
in breach of the requirements of Article 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(“the CCP”) as those documents were inadmissible as evidence.
30. The defendant’s representative reiterated his submissions made
before the first-instance court.
31. During the appellate hearing, the court questioned as a witness a
representative of AMC. She stated, in general terms, that she had been in the
houses where the applicants stayed in Azerbaijan. Workers staying in those
houses had complained to her NGO about their living conditions, wages,
lack of medical insurance and insufficient food. On an unspecified date she
had written, on behalf of 272 of those workers, to the Prosecutor General’s
Office about their complaints. Generally, as a result of involvement of
AMC, the workers’ situation had improved and they had been provided with
better meals and with medical assistance. Eventually, they had been paid
their wages, given their documents back and returned to their home
countries.
32. On 8 February 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-
instance judgment. Besides reiterating the findings of the first-instance
court, it also held that the provisions of the Law on labour migration and the
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant
Workers and Members of Their Families (“the ICRMW”) were not
applicable to the applicants, because they concerned lawful “migrant
workers”, whereas the applicants had not been “individuals who had
migrated from one country to another on lawful grounds”. Instead, the
applicants had been “foreign employees” who had concluded employment
contracts with a foreign company (Acora) abroad and had been temporarily
seconded to Azerbaijan to work at the subsidiary of that company.
According to Article 6 of the Labour Code, the provisions of that Code did
not apply to such foreign employees.
33. The appellate court found that the applicants’ complaints concerning
breaches of their rights by Serbaz were unsubstantiated. It did not address
the applicants’ lawyer’s submissions concerning the first-instance court’s
alleged refusal to admit the ASTRA Report and rejection of his other
requests.
34. The applicants lodged a cassation appeal, reiterating their arguments.
They also noted that, despite the argument by Serbaz and the lower courts’
finding that they had been seconded to Azerbaijan for periods not exceeding
three months, they had in fact stayed and worked in Azerbaijan for periods
of six months and longer, and that this was reflected in the copies of their
passports enclosed with their claim. On 23 September 2011 the Supreme
Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment, briefly reiterating the lower
court’s findings and reasoning.
8
C. Documents concerning other complaints and requests addressed to

the authorities in Azerbaijan
35. Copies of the following documents were submitted by the

Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
36. A copy of an email from AMC to several recipients, including
ASTRA, dated 28 December 2010, stated that the president of AMC was
sending to the recipients “the translated version of [AMC’s] letter to the
Prosecutor General”.
37. Moreover, an English translation of a letter, without a date, from the
president of AMC to the Prosecutor General of Azerbaijan, which was
apparently in attachment to the above email, provided essentially the same
information about foreign workers of Serbaz as that given by the applicants
to the domestic courts (see paragraphs 5-9 and 19 above). The letter further
stated that, in AMC’s view, Serbaz officials had committed criminal
offences under various provisions of Article 144-1 (trafficking in human
beings) of the Criminal Code. It further noted that, on 22 October 2009,
AMC had sent a letter to the Ministry of Internal Affairs asking for an
investigation of the mentioned circumstances, but that no measures had
been taken. Lastly, the Prosecutor General was requested to supervise the
matter and take measures.
38. Furthermore, the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina also
submitted an uncertified “unofficial translation” into English of a decision
of the Supreme Court of Azerbaijan of 12 July 2010. According to the
contents of this document, AMC had lodged a civil claim with the Sabail
District Court against the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, asking the court to order the above authorities to “take a
relevant procedural decision” in connection with AMC’s letter of
22 October 2009. AMC was represented in the court proceedings by
Mr M. Bakhishov. The claim was declared inadmissible by the Sabail
District Court on 28 December 2009, which held that such a request could
not have been made in the form of a civil claim, but should have been
lodged under the procedure of judicial supervision in criminal proceedings
under Article 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”). This
inadmissibility decision was upheld by the Baku Court of Appeal on
19 January 2010. By decision of 12 July 2010 the Supreme Court quashed
the Baku Court of Appeal’s decision and remitted the case for a new
examination, finding that there were no procedural decisions delivered in
criminal proceedings which could be challenged under Article 449 of the
CCrP and that, in such circumstances, the plaintiff could challenge the
alleged inactivity of the authorities in civil proceedings.
39. No other information is available in the case file as to the outcome of
the proceedings mentioned in the unofficial translation of the above-
mentioned decision.
9
40. The Azerbaijani Government and the applicants did not expressly
and specifically comment on the above-mentioned documents and
translations submitted by the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
D. Criminal proceedings in Bosnia and Herzegovina concerning

persons affiliated with Serbaz and the related legal-assistance
correspondence between the authorities of Bosnia and
Herzegovina and Azerbaijan
41. The factual circumstances described below transpire from the

documents submitted by the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
unless otherwise indicated.
42. In late 2009 the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina
initiated a criminal investigation in connection with the allegations of forced
labour and trafficking by Serbaz management and employees, under
Article 250(2) (organised crime), Article 185 (establishment of slavery and
transport of slaves) and Article 186 (trafficking in human beings) of the
Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Eventually, after completion of
the investigation, on 7 July 2014 a total of thirteen nationals of Bosnia and
Herzegovina were indicted in the framework of these proceedings. Eleven
of them were charged with the criminal offences of organised crime in
conjunction with trafficking in human beings, one with the organised crime
in conjunction with trafficking in human beings and money laundering
under Article 209(3) of the Criminal Code, and one with the organised
crime in conjunction with money laundering.
1. Legal-assistance requests of the Bosnia and Herzegovina authorities

and the information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities
(a) The first legal-assistance request
43. On 29 April 2010 the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and
Herzegovina sent a legal-assistance request to the relevant authorities of the
Republic of Azerbaijan under the European Convention on Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters (“the Mutual Assistance Convention”). It
informed the Azerbaijani authorities that, at the time the request was made,
eleven Bosnia and Herzegovina nationals, including one unidentified, and
one unidentified Azerbaijani national (known only by first name, S.) were
suspected of having committed the above-mentioned criminal offences. In
particular, the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina had received
information from former workers of Serbaz that, while they had worked in
Azerbaijan, the above-mentioned suspected persons had taken away their
travel documents, that the workers had been accommodated in places with
inhumane living conditions, that they had been subjected to various
unjustified punishments, that their freedom of movement had been
10
restricted, that they had been exposed to mental and sometimes even
physical abuse, and that they had not been paid for their work.
44. The Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina requested the
Azerbaijani authorities to provide, inter alia, the following information:
(i) various information on the business activities of Serbaz in
Azerbaijan;
(ii) whether workers from Bosnia and Herzegovina had been registered
as foreigners with temporary residence in Azerbaijan and the list of those
workers of Serbaz;
(iii) whether the Azerbaijani authorities had received any official reports
of unlawful stay in Azerbaijan of any workers from Bosnia and
Herzegovina or any complaints from Bosnia and Herzegovina nationals
concerning any criminal or other offences or human rights violations and, if
so, what action had been taken by the Azerbaijani authorities;
(iv) whether in late 2009 the Azerbaijani authorities had taken control of
the construction sites where Serbaz had conducted its activities; and
(v) establishment of identity of the Azerbaijani national, S.
(b) The response to the first legal-assistance request

45. On 11 April 2011 the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Ankara transmitted
the response of the Azerbaijani authorities to the Embassy of Bosnia and
Herzegovina in Ankara. The response included the following documents:
(i) a letter of 21 October 2010 of the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office
forwarding the legal-assistance request, which it had received via the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the Baku City Main Police Office of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs;
(ii) a letter of 10 November 2010 of the Baku City Main Police Office
responding to the above-mentioned letter (informing that there was no
information in the centralised database as to whether six of the mentioned
Bosnia and Herzegovina nationals had crossed the Azerbaijani border and
that one other, M.V., the “head” of Serbaz, had permanent residence in
Moscow) and forwarding the request further to the Anti-Trafficking
Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs;
(iii) a letter of 11 November 2010 of the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office
addressed to the Operations and Statistical Information Department of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs, requesting information on entry to and exit
from the territory of Azerbaijan of the Bosnia and Herzegovina nationals
mentioned in the legal-assistance request (no response to this letter is
available in the case file); and
(iv) a letter of 18 November 2010 of the Anti-Trafficking Department
responding to the letters mentioned in points (i) and (ii) above.
46. In the above-mentioned letter of 18 November 2010, the
Anti-Trafficking Department provided, inter alia, the information
summarised in paragraphs 47-54 below.
11
47. The Anti-Trafficking Department had examined “information and

requests” received by it concerning nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Serbia and North Macedonia having been victims of forced labour. It had
determined that Serbaz, which was a subsidiary of Acora, had been
contracted by certain State authorities and private companies to construct
various buildings in Baku and Mingechevir. During the period from 2007 to
2009 around 750 workers from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and North
Macedonia had been taken by Serbaz to Azerbaijan under tourist visas.
They had been accommodated in seventeen flats in Baku and ten flats in
Mingechevir. In order to save their own money, some of the workers had
voluntarily agreed to be accommodated, free of charge, in larger dormitories
at Serbaz’s expense.
48. The workers had been provided with return flight tickets, four daily
meals, transportation to work sites and back, and medical assistance. On
average, each worker had been paid USD 2,000 to USD 2,500 per month.
Since there were no embassies of their respective countries in Azerbaijan
(the closest embassies being in Ankara) and since any loss of their identity
documents in Azerbaijan would have created problems in such a situation,
their passports had been taken away by the Serbaz official and Bosnia and
Herzegovina national, S.L., for necessary registrations and for safeguarding
purposes. Where necessary, the passports had been given back to specific
workers and then returned for safeguarding. Several workers had travelled
back to their countries for family reasons and had come back to Azerbaijan.
49. After working for a period of six months in Azerbaijan, each worker
had the right to one-month’s leave and, at this point, most workers had
chosen simply to return to their countries. Two named workers had told the
Anti-Trafficking Department that they had returned to work in Azerbaijan
for a second time because they were content with the working conditions
and wages. Eight named workers had married Azerbaijani women and
eventually settled in Azerbaijan.
50. In August and October 2009, two named workers had died from
heart problems.
51. As to the examination of alleged violations of some workers’ rights
by Serbaz, it was determined that those (unnamed) workers had been
reprimanded for violating internal disciplinary rules by consuming alcohol
during working hours and avoiding work and had been sent back to their
home countries. Moreover, according to statements by the “majority of
workers”, two individuals, including M.V. (the same name as the worker
mentioned in the applicants’ civil claim – see paragraph 19 above), had
been sent back for regularly consuming alcohol and breaking the relevant
disciplinary rules applicable in the construction industry.
52. During their stay in Azerbaijan, all workers had been in possession
of personal mobile phones and could have contacted any country in the
world. By the end of 2009, Serbaz had exceeded its construction targets but
12
had found itself in a difficult financial situation as it had run out of available
funds. Because of this, it had to lay off staff who had become redundant.
53. In October 2009 diplomats of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina
had visited Baku, met with Serbaz workers, inquired about their working
and living conditions and had discussions with the Serbaz management
concerning payment of due wages and other shortcomings. During those
meetings, workers had given the diplomats a collectively signed statement
that they had no grievances against the company. All workers who had
expressed the wish to return to their countries had been paid their due wages
accrued throughout the end of October 2009 and returned back to their
countries in an organised manner.
54. Several unnamed “questioned workers” had stated that they had not
been beaten, insulted, exploited or forced to do any work by Serbaz.
Accordingly, referring to all of the above, the Anti-Trafficking Department
had concluded that the allegations of foreign workers having been subjected
to forced labour on the territory of Azerbaijan had not been confirmed.
(c) The second legal-assistance request and the response

55. It appears that in September 2011 the Bosnia and Herzegovina
authorities requested further information from the Azerbaijani authorities
concerning, apparently, the business relations between Serbaz and the
Ministry of Youth and Sports of Azerbaijan.
56. In response, they were provided with a copy of a letter of 18 January
2012 of the Ministry of Youth and Sports addressed to the Nasimi District
Prosecutor’s Office of Azerbaijan, providing detailed information, which
can be summarised as follows.
57. In March 2007 the Ministry of Youth and Sports concluded its first
contract with Serbaz concerning the planned construction of a sports and
exhibition complex. Subsequently, it commissioned Serbaz in connection
with two other renovation and construction projects and, during the period
between 2007 and 2009 inclusively, concluded several contracts with
Serbaz concerning those projects and made a number of payments to Serbaz
under those contracts. In total, the Ministry paid 54,257,447 Azerbaijani
manats (AZN) to Serbaz under those contracts.
(d) The third legal-assistance request and the response

58. In November 2012 the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and
Herzegovina sent a third request to the Azerbaijani authorities, informing
them that, in addition to and in parallel with the criminal investigation, it
was conducting a financial investigation of Serbaz’s activities. It requested
information on all transactions linked to the Serbaz account at the
International Bank of Azerbaijan in 2009 and 2010. It also inquired whether
13
Serbaz had any other bank accounts in Azerbaijan and, if so, requested
similar information on transactions linked to those accounts.
59. In January 2013 the Azerbaijani authorities provided the requested
information in the form of printouts of bank statements.
2. Criminal convictions of four defendants in Bosnia and Herzegovina

60. According to copies of two judgments submitted by the Government
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, on 28 February and 10 July 2017, respectively,
the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted two of the thirteen accused
persons (see paragraph 42 above), S.L. and N.T., based on plea bargain
agreements. Those judgments have become final.
61. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found that there was sufficient
evidence on the basis of the guilty plea and evidence submitted by the
prosecution to conclude that those two persons were guilty of the criminal
offences of trafficking and organised crime under Articles 186(1) and
250(2) of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina. S.L. was
sentenced to one year and nine months’ imprisonment. N.T. received a
conditional prison sentence. The facts established by the Court of Bosnia
and Herzegovina in those two judgments were as follows.
62. Between August 2007 and November 2009, S.L. and N.T. were part
of an organised crime group that exploited nationals of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Serbia and North Macedonia by forcing them to work on
construction sites in Azerbaijan. The group carried out these acts under the
guise of Serbaz, which was a branch of Acora, a company registered in a
British oversees territory. Serbaz entered into contracts with the Ministry of
Youth and Sports of Azerbaijan, providing that Serbaz would complete
certain construction projects. Victims were told by employees of Serbaz
that, if they moved to Azerbaijan for employment, they would receive good
salaries, excellent accommodation, health insurance, and food expenses. In
addition, their visas would be paid for and their stay in Azerbaijan would be
regularised. Serbaz arranged the victims’ flights to Azerbaijan. Once they
arrived, the employees of Serbaz seized their travel documents, claiming
that this was necessary in order to regularise their residence. The victims’
travel documents were not returned to them, preventing them from leaving
the country to return home. Serbaz placed victims in inadequate,
overcrowded accommodation, and abused their alien status, their lack of
knowledge of the local language and their dependence on Serbaz in order to
exploit them for labour. The Serbaz management meted out both physical
and psychological punishment on victims, for example, by forcing them to
perform strenuous and prolonged physical labour and subjecting them to
beatings. Victims were paid wages which were arbitrarily reduced and they
were denied the employment benefits promised to them on the ground that
they had committed “disciplinary violations”. Victims were punished and
fined for smoking cigarettes, for consuming alcohol outside working hours
14
and for leaving the accommodation. Victims were deprived of their liberty
as they were prevented from leaving the accommodation outside of working
hours. They were deprived of adequate food, only receiving small portions
of low-calorie meals. Many workers lost significant weight while working
for Serbaz. Victims were expected to work shifts from twelve hours to as
many as twenty-four or thirty-six hours continuously, six or seven days per
week. Victims were also deprived of access to adequate healthcare and
some developed untreatable illnesses. An atmosphere of fear and
dependency was created within Serbaz by those implicated, with the
intention of fraudulently depriving the victims of their wages through
deductions, fines and denial of adequate accommodation, food and
healthcare in order to misappropriate the money transferred to the account
of Serbaz for construction projects. It was calculated that at least
5,895,040.67 Bosnia and Herzegovina convertible marks (approximately
3,000,000 euros) had been appropriated by the organised members within
Serbaz.
63. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina also submitted a
statement under oath given by applicant no. 1 in the Appendix, Mr Seudin
Zoletic, to the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 21 March 2012.
His statement was essentially in line with the findings set out in the
above-mentioned judgments.
64. According to the information publicly available on the internet site
of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, on 28 March 2018 the court
convicted two other persons, N.C. and S.K., accused in the framework of
the above-mentioned criminal proceedings, after a hearing for the
pronouncement of criminal sanction pursuant to plea bargain agreements.
The court found both of them guilty of the criminal offenses of organised
crime and trafficking in human beings. Both defendants were sentenced to
one year’s imprisonment, which sentences were replaced at the same
hearing with community service for ninety working days. The full text of
the judgment was not published. It appears that the convictions have
become final.
3. Acquittal of the remaining defendants by the Court of Bosnia and

Herzegovina
65. According to the documents submitted by the Government of Bosnia
and Herzegovina, by a judgment of 4 December 2019, following a trial, the
Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina acquitted the remaining nine accused
persons of all charges. Serbaz’s workers who were heard as witnesses
testified, for the most part, that promises given to them had mostly been
kept, including those concerning the kind of labour they would be doing,
their working hours and the salary they would receive. As concerns the
salaries, the workers generally stated that they had received the promised
payments. The only problematic period appeared to have been around 2009
15
when the company had encountered financial issues, as a result of which

payments had been delayed during that period. The court found, however,
that those payments had eventually been made, in some cases after the
workers had returned home. The main source of workers’ dissatisfaction
had been the lack of increased salary for overtime work. While the court
agreed that they had not received an increased compensation, such work had
been neither forced nor unpaid. It was also established that several workers
had been fined, mostly in relation to alcohol consumption. However, the
court held that such fines had been justified given that sobriety was
critically important in dangerous settings of construction labour.
66. The court also found that workers had lived in very good conditions
in terms of their accommodation. The possibility remained that some
workers had been accommodated differently, but there was no evidence that
their conditions had been inadequate or that there had been any intent on
part of the accused to abuse them. The court further held that workers’
freedom of movement had not been restricted as evidenced by, inter alia,
photographs showing them at dinners, barbecues and sporting events.
Although the workers had handed over their passports once they had arrived
in Azerbaijan, requests to have them back had been mostly allowed (for
example, when they had wanted to send money to their families). Relying
on copies of Azerbaijani “ID cards” of three specifically named workers,
none of whom are the applicants in the present case, the court noted that
workers had been issued Azerbaijani “ID cards” for moving around the
country freely.
67. As to the allegations of inadequate food and health care, the court
found them to be untrue, unproven or, at least, exaggerated. The majority of
workers stated that they had not been subjected to violence or physical
punishment. In rare examples where violence might have taken place, it
remained undetermined whether it had been instigated by the accused or by
workers themselves. The court found that, even if the accused were to be
considered the instigators, there was no necessary mens rea for the crime of
human trafficking.
68. On 29 January 2021 the Appeals Chamber of the Court of Bosnia
and Herzegovina upheld the first-instance judgment and reiterated that,
while the case could raise labour law issues, the elements of human
trafficking had not been proven.
16
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
I. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
A. The 1995 Constitution
69. Article 35 of the Constitution provides:
Article 35. Right to work

“III. No one may be subjected to forced labour ...”
70. Article 148 of the Constitution provides:
Article 148. Acts constituting the legislative system of the Republic of Azerbaijan
“II. International treaties to which the Republic of Azerbaijan is a party are an
integral part of the legislative system of the Republic of Azerbaijan ...”
B. The Criminal Code
71. Article 144-1 of the Criminal Code, as in force at the material time,
provided as follows:
Article 144-1. Trafficking in human beings

“144-1.1. Trafficking in persons, that is the recruitment, acquisition, apprehension,
harbouring, transportation, transfer or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use
of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse
of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or
benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the
purpose of exploitation –
is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period of five to ten years.
144-1.2. The same acts:
144-1.2.1. committed against two or more persons;
144-1.2.2. committed repeatedly;
...
144-1.2.5. committed by a group of persons who conspired in advance, an
organised group or a criminal network (criminal organisation);
144-1.2.6. committed by a perpetrator using his official authority;
144-1.2.7. committed by use or threat of violence which represents a danger to life
and health;
144-1.2.8. committed by means of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
of the victim; ...
are punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period of eight to twelve years.
17
144-1.3. Acts referred to in Articles 144-1.1 and 144-1.2 causing the death of a
victim or other grave consequences due to negligence –
are punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period of ten to fifteen years.
Notes:
1. "Human exploitation" referred to in this Article shall mean forced labour
(servitude), sexual exploitation, slavery and practices similar to slavery and the
dependence resulting therefrom, illegal extraction of human organs and tissues,
conduct of illegal biomedical research on a person, use of a woman as surrogate
mother, engaging a person in illegal, including criminal, activities.
2. Any consent by a victim of human trafficking to being exploited, his or her
lifestyle or immoral behaviour cannot be considered as a circumstance mitigating the
punishment for the person found guilty of trafficking in human beings.”
72. Article 144-2 of the Criminal Code, as in force at the material time,
provided as follows:
Article 144-2. Forced labour

“144-2.1. Forcing a person to perform certain work (service) by means of
intimidation, use or threat of force, or by means of confinement other than in the
situations prescribed by the law –
is punishable by correctional labour for a period of up to two years or deprivation of
liberty for the same period.
144-2.2. The same acts:
144-2.2.1. committed against two or more persons;
144-2.2.2. committed repeatedly;
...
144-2.2.5. committed by a perpetrator using his official authority;
144-2.2.6. committed by a group of persons who conspired in advance, an
organised group or a criminal network (criminal organisation) –
are punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period of three to five years.
144-2.3. Acts referred to in Articles 144-2.1 and 144-2.2 causing the death of a
victim or other grave consequences due to negligence –
are punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period of five to ten years.”
C. The 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”)
73. According to Article 37.1 of the CCrP, depending on the nature and
severity of the offence, the criminal prosecution is carried out under
procedures of private, semi-public or public criminal charges. According to
Article 37.6 of the CCrP, the criminal offences under Articles 144-1 and
144-2 of the Criminal Code, among many others, are prosecuted under the
procedure of public charges.
18
74. According to Article 38.1 of the CCrP, when the preliminary

investigator, investigator or prosecutor receives information concerning the
preparation or commission of a criminal offence or directly discovers such
an offence, he or she shall take measures to protect and collect evidence and
shall immediately conduct, within his or her powers, a preliminary
investigation or investigation in accordance with the procedures provided by
the CCrP.
75. Article 39 of the CCrP provides, in the relevant part:
Article 39. Circumstances excluding criminal prosecution

“39.1. Criminal prosecution cannot be commenced, and the commenced criminal
prosecution must be terminated (and criminal proceedings cannot be instituted, and
the instituted criminal proceedings must be terminated) in the following
circumstances:
39.1.1. absence of a criminal event; ...”
D. The 2000 Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”)
76. According Article 77.1 of the CCP, each party in civil proceedings
bears the burden of proving the grounds for their respective claims and
objections.
77. According to Article 89.1 of the CCP, written evidence is
documents, deeds, contracts, statements, professional correspondence and
other documents and material certified by a notary and providing
information relevant to a case. According to Article 89.2, documentary
material obtained by fax, electronically or by other communication means
or by other methods can be accepted by a court on the condition that the
authenticity of that material can be established. According to Article 89.3,
either originals or duly certified copies of the necessary evidence shall be
submitted to the court.
78. According to Article 265.4 of the CCP, if upon examination of a
civil claim a court discloses an appearance of criminal elements in
the actions of the parties to the case or other persons, it must deliver
a special ruling (xüsusi qərardad) informing a public prosecutor thereof.
E. The Labour Code
79. According to Article 4 of the Labour Code, the provisions of the

Code are applicable, with certain stipulations, to all enterprises, bodies and
organisations founded by the Azerbaijani State authorities, individuals and
legal entities and located on the territory of Azerbaijan. According to
Article 5 of the Code, the Code is also applicable, with certain stipulations,
to all workplaces registered and functioning in Azerbaijan, founded by
foreign States, foreign individuals and legal entities, international
19
organisations or Stateless persons, unless it is provided otherwise in the

treaties concluded by the Republic of Azerbaijan with foreign States or
international organisations.
80. Article 6 of the Labour Code provides as follows:
Article 6. Persons to whom this Code is not applicable

“This Code is not applicable to the following persons:
...
(d) foreigners who have concluded employment contracts with a foreign country’s
legal entity in that foreign country and who perform their employment functions at an
enterprise (branch or representative office) in the Republic of Azerbaijan; ...”
81. Articles 13.1-13.3 of the Code provides for the equality of labour
rights and obligations of Azerbaijani citizens and of foreigners and stateless
persons, unless otherwise provided by law or international treaties to which
Azerbaijan is a party, and prohibits any restrictions of labour rights of
foreigners and stateless persons, unless otherwise provided by law.
Article 13.4 of the Code, as in force at the material time, provided as
follows:
“4. Employers may hire foreigners or stateless persons after obtaining in their
respect individual work permits for performing remunerated labour activities on the
territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan in accordance with the procedure established
by law.”
82. Article 17 of the Labour Code prohibits forced labour.
F. Legislation on foreign citizens’ entry to and stay in Azerbaijan and

on labour migration
1. The Law on departure from and arrival in the country and on

passports of 14 June 1994
83. According to Article 12 of this Law, foreigners may enter and exit
the territory of Azerbaijan on the basis of a passport and valid visa. The
period of a foreigner’s temporary stay in Azerbaijan is determined by the
term indicated in the visa.
2. The Law on registration at the place of residence and place of stay of

4 April 1996
84. According to Article 6 of this Law, as in force at the material time, a
foreigner wishing to reside in Azerbaijan for a period of more than thirty
days was required to apply (to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the State
Migration Service), within three days of arrival at the place of residence, for
registration at that place of residence, by presenting, inter alia, the passport
and the visa. According to Article 11 of the Law, a foreigner wishing to stay
20
in Azerbaijan for a period of up to thirty days was required to apply for

registration at the “place of stay” (such as a hotel, dormitory, and other
places of temporary stay) at the time of arrival to that place, by, inter alia,
filling out a questionnaire and submitting it together with other documents
to the management or owner of the “place of stay”.
3. The Law on legal status of foreigners and stateless persons of

13 March 1996
85. According to Article 5 of this Law, foreigners wishing to
temporarily reside in Azerbaijan were to obtain a residence permit. A
residence permit was issued if, inter alia, the foreigner had obtained an
individual work permit for the purposes of working in Azerbaijan.
Foreigners temporarily or permanently residing in Azerbaijan were required
to be registered at their place of residence. Other foreigners who were
temporarily in Azerbaijan were required to be registered at their “place of
stay”.
4. The Law on labour migration of 28 October 1999

86. The Law on labour migration of 28 October 1999, as in force at the
material time (repealed as of 1 August 2013, in connection with adoption
and entry into force of the new 2013 Migration Code), defined the “labour
migration” as change by an individual of his or her place of residence for
the purposes of performing labour activities, and defined the “migrant
worker” as an individual who migrated from one country to another country
for the purposes of performing remunerated labour activities (Article 1).
87. The provisions of the Law were not applicable to, inter alia, persons
seconded for a period not exceeding three months (Article 3).
88. Legal entities, entrepreneurs and branches and representative offices
of foreign legal entities wishing to employ foreigners in Azerbaijan were
required to apply for a relevant permit from the relevant executive authority
(Articles 5 and 16). Foreigners performing remunerated labour activities in
Azerbaijan were required to obtain an individual work permit, by applying
to the relevant executive authority through their employer (Articles 6
and 16).
89. A migrant worker was issued a temporary residence permit for a
term of validity of the individual work permit. Upon the expiry of the term
of the individual work permit or upon termination of the employment
contract, the migrant worker was required to leave the territory of
Azerbaijan. Where a migrant worker performed remunerated labour
activities in Azerbaijan in breach of the requirements of this Law, he or she
was to be expelled from the territory of Azerbaijan at the expense of his or
her employer (Article 8).
21
5. The Law on State fee of 4 December 2001

90. According to Article 18.58 of this Law, as in force at the material
time, the fee for an initial issuance of an individual work permit was
1,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) and the fee for prolongation of the permit
was in the same amount.
G. The Law on combating trafficking in human beings of 28 June

2005
91. Article 1 of this Law provides definitions of “trafficking in human

beings” and “forced labour” similar to those given in the Criminal Code (see
paragraphs 71-72 above).
92. The Law provides, inter alia, for adoption of the National Action
Plan on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings and for establishment of
the office of the National Coordinator on Combating Trafficking in Human
Beings and a special anti-trafficking police unit. It also contains provisions
concerning prevention of human trafficking, rehabilitation and protection of
victims, and criminal liability for and specifics of criminal cases concerning
the offence of trafficking in human beings.
93. According to Article 26 of the Law, in combating trafficking in
human beings, the Republic of Azerbaijan cooperates with other States,
their law-enforcement authorities, as well as with international organisations
combating trafficking in human beings, in accordance with the international
treaties to which it is a party.
94. According to Article 27 of the Law, Azerbaijani citizens, foreign
citizens and stateless persons who have committed criminal offences related
to trafficking in human beings are criminally prosecuted under the Criminal
Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan irrespective of the place where the
offence was committed.
95. According to Article 28 of the Law, legal assistance in criminal
cases concerning trafficking in human beings is provided in accordance with
the international treaties to which Azerbaijan is a party and the Azerbaijani
legislation on legal assistance in criminal cases.
II. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW
96. At the time of the events of the present case, Azerbaijan was a party
to the following relevant international treaties:
- the Geneva Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery of
25 September 1926;
- Convention no. 29 of the International Labour Organisation (the ILO)
of 28 June 1930 on forced labour (“ILO Convention no. 29”);
- the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave
Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery of 30 April 1956;
22
- the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“the

ICCPR”);
- the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All
Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families of 18 December 1990
(“the ICRMW”); and
- the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons,
especially Women and Children (“the Palermo Protocol”), supplementing
the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime of
December 2000.
As to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in
Human Beings of 16 May 2005, Azerbaijan signed it on 25 February 2010
and ratified it on 23 June 2010, and that Convention entered into force in
respect of Azerbaijan on 1 October 2010.
The relevant provisions of the above-mentioned treaties (except the
ICRMW, the provisions of which are cited in paragraph 99 below) and the
related material are cited in Siliadin v. France (no. 73316/01, §§ 50-51,
ECHR 2005-VII); Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (no. 25965/04, §§ 137-41,
149-55 and 160-74, ECHR 2010 (extracts)); Chowdury and Others
v. Greece (no. 21884/15, §§ 39-44, 30 March 2017); and S.M. v. Croatia
([GC], no. 60561/14, §§ 109-22 and 130-71, 25 June 2020).
97. In particular, Article 2 § 1 of ILO Convention no. 29 reads as
follows:
“... the term forced or compulsory labour shall mean all work or service which is
exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said
person has not offered himself voluntarily.”
98. The Palermo Protocol defines trafficking in human beings as
follows:
“‘Trafficking’ in persons shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer,
harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms
of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a
position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to
achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of
exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services,
slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs ...”
99. The following are, inter alia, the relevant provisions of the
ICRMW (adopted by the United Nations General Assembly resolution
45/158 of 18 December 1990, ratified by Azerbaijan on 11 January 1999,
entered into force on 1 July 2003):
23
Article 2
“For the purposes of the present Convention:
1. The term "migrant worker" refers to a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or
has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a State of which he or she is not a
national.
2. ...
(f) The term "project-tied worker" refers to a migrant worker admitted to a State of
employment for a defined period to work solely on a specific project being carried out
in that State by his or her employer;
(g) The term "specified-employment worker" refers to a migrant worker:
(i) Who has been sent by his or her employer for a restricted and defined period of
time to a State of employment to undertake a specific assignment or duty; or
(ii) Who engages for a restricted and defined period of time in work that requires
professional, commercial, technical or other highly specialized skill; or
(iii) Who, upon the request of his or her employer in the State of employment,
engages for a restricted and defined period of time in work whose nature is transitory
or brief; and who is required to depart from the State of employment either at the
expiration of his or her authorized period of stay, or earlier if he or she no longer
undertakes that specific assignment or duty or engages in that work; ...”
Article 3
“The present Convention shall not apply to:
...
(b) Persons sent or employed by a State or on its behalf outside its territory who
participate in development programmes and other co-operation programmes, whose
admission and status are regulated by agreement with the State of employment and
who, in accordance with that agreement, are not considered migrant workers; ...”
Article 11
“1. No migrant worker or member of his or her family shall be held in slavery or
servitude.
2. No migrant worker or member of his or her family shall be required to perform
forced or compulsory labour ...”
Article 16
“2. Migrant workers and members of their families shall be entitled to effective
protection by the State against violence, physical injury, threats and intimidation,
whether by public officials or by private individuals, groups or institutions ...”
Article 21
“It shall be unlawful for anyone, other than a public official duly authorized by law,
to confiscate, destroy or attempt to destroy identity documents, documents authorizing
entry to or stay, residence or establishment in the national territory or work permits.
No authorized confiscation of such documents shall take place without delivery of a
24
detailed receipt. In no case shall it be permitted to destroy the passport or equivalent

document of a migrant worker or a member of his or her family ...”
Article 69
“1. States Parties shall, when there are migrant workers and members of their
families within their territory in an irregular situation, take appropriate measures to
ensure that such a situation does not persist.
2. Whenever States Parties concerned consider the possibility of regularizing the
situation of such persons in accordance with applicable national legislation and
bilateral or multilateral agreements, appropriate account shall be taken of the
circumstances of their entry, the duration of their stay in the States of employment and
other relevant considerations, in particular those relating to their family situation.”
100. Both Azerbaijan and Bosnia and Herzegovina are parties to the
European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 May
1959 of the Council of Europe (“the Mutual Assistance Convention”) (entry
into force in respect of Azerbaijan on 2 October 2003 and in respect of
Bosnia and Herzegovina on 24 July 2005), the relevant provisions of which
provide as follows:
Article 1
“1. The Contracting Parties undertake to afford each other, in accordance with the
provisions of this Convention, the widest measure of mutual assistance in proceedings
in respect of offences the punishment of which, at the time of the request for
assistance, falls within the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities of the requesting
Party ...”
Article 3
“1. The requested Party shall execute in the manner provided for by its law any
letters rogatory relating to a criminal matter and addressed to it by the judicial
authorities of the requesting Party for the purpose of procuring evidence or
transmitting articles to be produced in evidence, records or documents.
2. If the requesting Party desires witnesses or experts to give evidence on oath, it
shall expressly so request, and the requested Party shall comply with the request if the
law of its country does not prohibit it ...”
III. RELEVANT REPORTS CONCERNING THE SITUATION AT

SERBAZ AND MIGRANT WORKERS IN AZERBAIJAN IN
GENERAL
A. The ASTRA Report
101. As noted above, the ASTRA Report, dated 27 November 2009, was
prepared jointly by three NGOs: ASTRA (Serbia), La Strada (Bosnia and
Herzegovina) and Cooperation for Social Development (Croatia). The
report is around twenty pages long. The report exists in Serbian (original)
and Azerbaijani (translation). In preparation of the report, the authors also
25
cooperated, inter alia, with AMC. The report was largely based on the
information given by workers who had returned to their home countries.
According to the report, the grievances concerning Serbaz first appeared in
some media in Bosnia and Herzegovina on 20 October 2009. In November
2009 the NGOs became involved in the matter, having also received
information by email from an unidentified source and in a telephone call
from the OSCE Warsaw office. The report noted that its contents constituted
“initial information”.
102. According to the report, by 2009, Serbaz had already been involved
in construction projects in Azerbaijan, commissioned by the Azerbaijani
authorities, for a period of two or three years. For this purpose, it hired
nationals of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia and took
them to Azerbaijan. It was not possible to determine the exact number of
workers taken to Azerbaijan during that period. According to various
estimates, the total number was several hundred people and perhaps around
a thousand.
103. More workers were taken by Serbaz to Azerbaijan in 2009 than in
previous years. Violence against workers intensified in the second half of
2009. Payment of wages was often delayed and workers were often paid
less than promised. Deductions were made from the wages as punishment
for breaching rules during and outside working hours. Payment of wages
was completely stopped on 12 or 13 October 2009.
104. The report identified, by their full names, two persons who were
presumably nationals of either Bosnia and Herzegovina or Serbia as
possible owners of Serbaz. It further identified four individuals who formed
the “management” of the company. These were three presumed Bosnia and
Herzegovina nationals, identified by their full names, including S.L. (see
paragraph 60 above), and one Azerbaijani national who was rumoured to be
a former police officer and could only be identified by the nickname
“Colonel”, and who, the workers believed, acted as a liaison with the
authorities. It further identified three chief “supervisors” who were also in
charge of other supervisors: two presumed Bosnia and Herzegovina
nationals, including N.T. (see paragraph 60 above), and one presumed
Azerbaijani national who could be identified only by first name (R.). These
individuals were described as cruel and violent.
105. Workers were hired in their home countries by representatives of
Serbaz who asked them to sign “contracts”, in the form of a questionnaire
rather than a contract and only in one copy per worker (apparently kept by
Serbaz). Travel expenses to Azerbaijan were paid partly by workers (local
travel to the departure airport) and partly by Serbaz (airline tickets). The
workers were also reportedly asked to pay some money upfront for, as they
were told, visa and other expenses with a promise that those amounts would
be reimbursed.
26
106. S.L. and other Serbaz representatives met workers at the Baku
airport and immediately took away their passports with an explanation that
that was necessary in order to regularise their residence. The passports were
not returned to them until their eventual departure. Neither were they
provided with work permits or residence permits and, accordingly, they
stayed in Azerbaijan illegally after their visas had expired.
107. Those who worked in Baku lived in five houses and those who
worked in Mingechevir in one house. The living conditions were poor: there
were a lack of enough toilets, water outages, lack of hot running water,
frequent lack of drinking water and lack of sufficient heating. There were
strict internal disciplinary rules, forbidding workers to leave the houses
during non-working hours without permission. Food was bad, monotonous
and insufficient, as a result of which many workers lost considerable
weight. After Serbaz “stopped” operations in October 2009, food portions
became even smaller. In Mingechevir, workers had to buy additional food
on credit in local shops, because they did not have money.
108. They worked shifts of twelve hours or longer, which could also be
further extended by a supervisor’s decision. On one occasion, N.T.
prolonged one particular shift to thirty-six hours. There was either no or
insufficient personal safety equipment given to them.
109. Workers were required to go to work even when they were sick.
There was no doctor attending to them. There was only one nurse from
North Macedonia who was not in a position to provide adequate care.
Reportedly, three workers died from heart attacks and their bodies were
returned by Serbaz to their home countries.
110. Before leaving for Azerbaijan, when signing “contracts”, workers
had been promised to be paid USD 5 to 7 per hour (USD 5 to 5.5 during the
first month and more thereafter). However, in fact, they were paid USD 3 to
4 per hour. As a result, they received USD 1,000 to 3,000 less in wages.
From May to August 2009 no wages were paid at all. As a result, those who
arrived in Azerbaijan in April or May 2009 either received their first
payment in August or did not receive anything until their return. The
management advised workers to “entrust”, for “their own good”, their
wages to the company for safekeeping until the end of their employment.
Workers who followed this advice could not eventually recover their wages.
111. Workers were often punished by fines, which usually ranged in the
amounts between USD 100 and 500, and sometimes more, for coming back
to the house later than permitted, leaving the house without permission, not
making their bed, pausing at work or leaving work a couple minutes earlier,
using toilets too often when at work, drinking alcohol during non-working
hours, going to sleep early, and so on.
112. As to restrictions on leaving the houses without permission, the
management told workers that these were necessary because they were not
in possession of their passports and that they could be stopped and arrested
27
by the police, in which case Serbaz would have to pay large fines. On some
occasions Serbaz also did not allow workers to travel back home for family
reasons.
113. The report also contained several accounts of detentions of workers
for periods of up to three days or physical force used on workers by the
management and supervisors for such things as, for example, complaining
about work and bringing alcohol and food to the house from outside.
114. In October 2009 “Colonel” told workers who were in Azerbaijan at
that time that Serbaz was stopping its activity in Azerbaijan. Then they were
flown back to their home countries in groups of ten to forty-five at Serbaz’s
expense. Before the flight, they were asked to sign papers stating that they
had been paid their wages and had lived in good conditions, after which
they were paid some amount of money, handed back their passports and
taken to the airport. According to some workers, they had unspecified
“problems” with airport or airline staff because their stay in Azerbaijan had
not been regularised. According to one of them, he had to pay a bribe to
airport staff to be allowed to depart from Baku. On some occasions, Colonel
personally made phone calls to airport staff for workers to be allowed
through.
115. According to the report, the Azerbaijani national coordinator on
fight against human trafficking reported on the Serbaz case to the
Parliament on 28 October 2009, noting that alleged working conditions of
workers from Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina was not Azerbaijan’s
problem because they had been hired and had signed their contracts in those
countries.
116. Furthermore, the report stated, without specifying dates or details,
that workers had complained to the Azerbaijani police several times about
threats against them, but to no avail. They also wrote a letter to the Chief
Prosecutor’s Office but received no reply. Also, according to some workers,
no Azerbaijani State officials had ever visited them, even though the
authorities “knew what was happening at Serbaz”.
117. Workers told the NGOs that they sought assistance from the Bosnia
and Herzegovina ambassador in Turkey, who sent the consul to meet with
them in October 2009. The consul met with the Minister of Youth and Sport
as well as with workers.
B. The Council of Europe: Group of Experts on Action against

Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA)
118. The following are extracts from the GRETA report concerning the
implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against
Trafficking in Human Beings by Azerbaijan, first evaluation round (adopted
on 21 March 2014 and published on 23 May 2014) (“the GRETA Report”):
28
“12. ... Due to its rapid economic development, Azerbaijan has attracted a growing
number of migrant workers in recent years. According to several reports, Azerbaijan
is increasingly becoming a country of destination for people trafficked for the purpose
of labour exploitation, in particular in the construction sector, and to a lesser extent in
agriculture and domestic work. While the Azerbaijani authorities are conscious of the
migration trends, they do not consider Azerbaijan to be a destination country for THB
[trafficking in human beings] for labour exploitation ...
...
54. GRETA notes that the focus in Azerbaijan has been essentially on fighting THB
for the purpose of sexual exploitation of Azerbaijani women abroad and not enough
attention has been paid to THB for labour exploitation, particularly occurring in
Azerbaijan ... The Azerbaijani authorities acknowledge the fact that labour
exploitation can become a problem with the increase of migrant workers and the
boom of the construction sector, in particular in the context of the First European
Games to be organised in 2015 in Baku. Members of civil society consider that
trafficking of migrant workers for labour exploitation has become a serious problem
in Azerbaijan particularly in the sectors of construction and, to a lesser extent,
agriculture and domestic work. In the absence of recent research on the topic, the
scale of the problem of trafficking in human beings for the purpose of labour
exploitation in Azerbaijan is yet unknown. Law enforcement officials and labour
inspectors reportedly have a tendency to see potential cases of THB for labour
exploitation as labour disputes between the worker and the employer. GRETA
considers that the Azerbaijani authorities should acknowledge the phenomenon of
THB for labour exploitation and adapt their policy and practical measures to the new
situation in Azerbaijan.
...
101. GRETA notes that the 2005 Law on Combating THB does not refer to migrant
workers as a group vulnerable to THB ... GRETA is concerned by reports according
to which migrants’ passports were taken away and migrants work and live in dire
situations on some construction sites. In order to better prevent migrant workers from
falling victim to THB for labour exploitation, more should be done to empower them
by granting them a clear legal status and diminishing the precariousness of their stay
in Azerbaijan. GRETA understands that the Migration Code, which entered into force
on 1 August 2013, is a tool which should enhance the protection of migrants’ rights.
In particular, it simplifies the issuing of work permits for migrant workers and
stateless persons. Prior to it, work permits were not extended more than four times ...
...
106. ... GRETA notes with concern that, according to ECRI’s third report on
Azerbaijan, migrants working in some sectors including construction, agriculture and
domestic work are faced with difficulties making them vulnerable to serious forms of
abuse, including to trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation. The reasons for
this state of affairs are the existence of very strict quotas applying to work permits for
foreigners, the high cost of these work permits and the waiting time for obtaining or
renewing them. The fact that the work permit can only be for one year and that the
employer has to pay 1,000 AZN (approximately 1,000 euros) to the State to obtain the
permit for the first year and for each following years is said to encourage illegal work
and the vulnerability of migrant workers. In their comments on the draft report, the
Azerbaijani authorities have underlined that under the new Migration Code,
applications for a work permit must be processed within 20 days and the work permit
must be presented to the employer within three days from the decision granting it
29
(Article 67). No additional fees will be paid in cases where a new permit is required
for a migrant worker or stateless person who is moved from one post to another within
the same company. According to GRETA, measures which could improve the
situation by enabling legal migration for work to Azerbaijan include removing the
dependence of the migrant workers from their employers who are the only one
allowed to apply for the above mentioned one-year work permit and reducing the
amount to pay to obtain a one-year work permit.
...
121. ... Raids and controls operated by the Department for Combating THB
(occasionally together with the Labour Inspection Services and the Azerbaijan
Entrepreneurs Confederation) in construction sites and other places employing
migrant workers have so far hardly ever resulted in the detection of victims of THB.
Reports of forced labour have been brought to the attention of the Department for
Combating THB which has proceeded to inspect the premises, but no case of THB for
forced labour has been identified ...
...
162. As indicated in paragraph 54, law enforcement officials and labour inspectors
reportedly have a tendency to see potential cases of THB for labour exploitation as
labour disputes between the worker and the employer. There seems to be confusion
between cases of THB for labour exploitation and disputes on salaries or other aspects
of working conditions. Recently, in some cases, the Azerbaijani authorities in
co-operation with NGOs have successfully intervened (in out of court settlements)
and obtained from employers that they pay the salaries due to migrant workers.
However, GRETA stresses that where the situation corresponds to THB for forced
labour and not just late payment of salaries, the reimbursement of salaries is to be
ensured but would not be sufficient to compensate victims of this serious human
rights violation for their moral and material damages.
...
195. GRETA was informed of the so-called “SerbAz” case of alleged transnational
trafficking for labour exploitation in Azerbaijan, involving men from Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Serbia and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. In 2009, the
alleged victims responded to an employment offer as construction workers in
Azerbaijan by the company “SerbAz Project Design and Construction LLC”
registered in the Netherlands and Azerbaijan. It would appear that immediately upon
their arrival in Azerbaijan, their passports were taken away and they were put to work
on various construction sites guarded by armed people. They were locked up after
working hours, accommodated in very poor conditions and their salaries were not
paid. Moreover, the workers were allegedly subjected to heavy monetary fines for
“disciplinary misconduct” and abused physically and psychologically. The Serbian
NGO Astra has issued a report on the case, according to which three workers died
from heart attack, which was apparently not followed by any investigation. According
to Astra, no investigations have been initiated in Azerbaijan and all complaints against
the police and the prosecution for failure to investigate have been dismissed.
196. During the visit to Azerbaijan, the GRETA delegation raised the case in
question at meetings with representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affair and the
State Prosecutor’s Office. The Azerbaijani authorities informed the delegation that
after having interviewed a significant number of workers concerned, the Department
on Combating Human Trafficking concluded that it could not identify any sign of
trafficking or forced labour. None of the persons involved in this case were identified
30
as victims of trafficking in Azerbaijan. Some of them were paid the salaries which the
company owed them (a total of four million euros were paid) thanks to the
intervention of civil society and the Azerbaijani authorities. In their comments on the
draft report, the Azerbaijani authorities have added that the case had been closed on
27 April 2011 as it had been considered that there was nothing to substantiate a
criminal case against the company, in accordance with Article 39.1.1 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. They have also stated that no complaint was subsequently lodged by
the workers concerned and that the application filed on behalf of the workers by the
NGO Azerbaijan Migration Centre was turned down by the Narimanov District Court
and the Baku Court of Appeal, the decision of 27 April 2011 being upheld. GRETA
recalls that effective investigation is a prerequisite for the successful implementation
of the obligation of the Parties arising under the substantive criminal law (Chapter IV)
and investigation, prosecution and procedural law (Chapter V) provisions of the
Convention, and that it is not necessary to have a complaint lodged by a possible
victim to start investigation or prosecution (see Article 27 of the Convention).
C. The Council of Europe: European Commission against Racism

and Intolerance (ECRI)
119. The following are extracts from the third ECRI report on
Azerbaijan (fourth monitoring cycle) (adopted on 23 March 2011 and
published on 31 May 2011):
“77. With specific regard to migrant workers, to be able to work legally they must
be in possession of a valid work permit. Under the system established by law, it is for
the employer to carry out the formalities for obtaining the required work permit and to
pay the related fee, which amounts to AZN 1,000 per permit. Permits have a validity
of one year and cannot be renewed more than four 25 times. The fee for renewing a
permit is also AZN 1,000; in both cases, this amount reflects the authorities’ aim to
ensure that migrant workers only replace local workers where there exists a genuine
need. Any employer in breach of these rules can incur heavy fines. ECRI notes that,
although the system put in place has the merits of being clear and of making
employers fully responsible for their acts, many civil society sources report that there
are serious problems in practice. This is because, due in particular to the high cost of
work permits and the waiting time for obtaining or renewing them, many employers
have recourse to illegal employment practices. However, once migrant workers have
become illegally employed they are vulnerable to serious forms of abuse. Cases have
been reported where employers knowingly hired migrant workers without work
permits and, for example, subsequently confiscated their passports and other identity
documents, imposed extremely harsh working conditions, withheld workers’ wages,
failed to provide them with health insurance cover, or imposed restrictions on their
freedom of movement – workers without legal documents having for instance been
forced to live on the building sites where they are employed or in camps which they
could leave only with the camp supervisor’s permission. In this connection, ECRI
underlines that migrant workers and members of their families, including those
without regular status, must have the same rights as Azerbaijani citizens to file
complaints and avail themselves of effective remedies before the courts. It is also
important that labour inspectors should not be obliged under the applicable provisions
to communicate the names of workers in an irregular situation to the immigration
authorities, and should be able to focus on the measures necessary to remedy the
abuses perpetrated by employers.
31
78. In addition, ECRI has been informed that any undocumented migrant who is
stopped by the authorities can be deported immediately. The persons concerned are
usually unaware of the substantive rules governing residence in Azerbaijan; even
though the authority that delivers the deportation decision is required to inform the
individuals concerned of the remedies available, without access to counselling or legal
assistance, they have no real means of challenging the deportation measure in the
courts before they are removed from the country. These problems are not confined to
people who have recently entered the country but can also concern migrant workers
who have been hired illegally and who do not dare to contact the labour inspectorate
and even persons who have been living in Azerbaijan for several years and who, for
some reason or another, find themselves in an irregular situation. In this last case, in
particular, the lack of a means of effectively challenging the deportation measure can
have serious implications for the private and family life of the persons concerned.”
D. The International Labour Organisation
120. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and

Recommendations (CEACR) made the following observation on the
application of the ILO Convention no. 29 (adopted 2010, published 100th
ILC session (2011)):
“Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Vulnerable situation of migrant
workers in the construction sector. The Committee notes the communication dated 1
September 2010 received from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC),
which contains comments on the application of the Convention by Azerbaijan. It also
notes the Government’s reply to this communication received on 29 November 2010.
The Communication by the ITUC contains allegations concerning the situation of
about 700 workers from Bosnia and Herzegovina, The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia and Serbia who were working on construction sites managed by the
SerbAz Design and Construction Company in Azerbaijan. The ITUC refers in this
connection to the reports received from the Office for Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights (the ODIHR) of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe (the OSCE) and from ASTRA (Anti-Trafficking Action), an NGO in Serbia.
According to the allegations, workers had been recruited in Bosnia and Herzegovina
and, once in Azerbaijan, were not provided with any legal work permits, but only with
tourist visas, having also to hand over their passports to their employer. Without
identification documents and residence permits, workers’ freedom of movement was
limited and their vulnerability was aggravated by the fact that they were obliged to
live at the construction site, being strictly forbidden to leave, subject to threats of
penalties, including physical punishment. The ITUC further alleged that workers had
been living in appalling conditions, with insufficient food, water or proper medical
services, which lead to two deaths.
The ITUC expressed the view that there have been indications of forced labour in
this case, which include, inter alia, the use of threats and abuse of workers’
vulnerability; coercion; deception regarding working and living conditions; physical
punishment, high recruitment fees; withholding of wages; salary deductions;
confiscation of documents; absence of work permits; limitations to freedom of
movement; and absence of regular employment contracts.
The ITUC informs that the OSCE representative visited the constructions sites and
confirmed the poor living conditions and apparent threats to workers. The Azeri
Parliament was also informed of the situation and debated the issue, coinciding with
32
the submission of the annual report of the Azerbaijan National Anti-Trafficking

Coordinator, which stated, however, that the situation of Serbian and Bosnian workers
did not fall within Azerbaijan’s jurisdiction, since the workers signed work
agreements with SerbAz in their countries of origin. According to the above
communication by the ITUC, some investigations have been initiated by national
authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Azerbaijan; ... A petition to the
Ombudsman in Azerbaijan had also been prepared, and about 500 workers in Bosnia
and Herzegovina were preparing to submit a case to the court in Azerbaijan to claim
unpaid wages and other violations of workers’ rights.
...
In its reply to the comments submitted by the ITUC, the Government denies the
allegations, indicating that no direct appeals from workers employed by SerbAz
regarding labour violations have been submitted to the Ministry of Labour and Social
Protection of Population of the Republic of Azerbaijan. It further indicates that the
only information concerning workers’ rights violations had been received from the
NGO “Azerbaijan Migration Centre”, and that an appropriate investigation has been
subsequently conducted by the State Labour Inspectorate, which did not confirm the
allegations against the SerbAz company. According to the investigation, “it was
defined that some specialists from a number of foreign countries were on their
business trip” for that company. Finally, the Government informs that no individual
work permits for foreign citizens have been obtained by the SerbAz company ...”
THE LAW
I. SCOPE OF THE CASE
121. At the outset, owing to the fact that the applicants did not articulate
very clearly their grievances under the Convention in the initial application
form (compare, mutatis mutandis, S.M. v. Croatia [GC], no. 60561/14,
§ 335, 25 June 2020) and that the Government raised objections relating to
the scope of the case (see paragraphs 122-123 below), the Court considers it
necessary to address these matters first.
122. In their comments to the applicants’ observations, the respondent
Government submitted that, while the Government’s own submissions had
been “based on the facts of the case as they appear[ed] in the materials of
the case-file”, the applicants had made new arguments in their observations
that had not been “substantiated by the materials in the case file”. The Court
considers that this submission amounts to an argument that the applicants’
observations went beyond the scope of the initial application.
123. Furthermore, in their comments on the observations of the third
party, the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the respondent
Government argued that the third party’s submissions “[had gone] beyond
the scope of the present application and must be dismissed”. The respondent
Government considered, in particular, that the third party had “tried to
replace the applicants’ arguments with [their] own and to submit new facts
and arguments allegedly related to the present case” and had “commented
on the facts and merits of the case relying on the outcome of proceedings
33
conducted well after the date of lodging of the present application”. The
respondent Government noted that, while it appeared that some of the
applicants had taken part in the proceedings conducted in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, they must have had access to the documentary material
relating to those proceedings and could have therefore submitted it to the
Court themselves, which they had chosen not to do.
124. The Court reiterates that for the purpose of Article 32 of the
Convention the scope of a case “referred to” the Court in the exercise of the
right of individual application is determined by the applicant’s complaint. A
complaint consists of two elements: factual allegations and legal arguments
(see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12,
§ 126, 20 March 2018). By virtue of the jura novit curia principle the Court
is not bound by the legal grounds adduced by the applicant under the
Convention and the Protocols thereto and has the power to decide on the
characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a complaint by examining
it under Articles or provisions of the Convention that are different from
those relied upon by the applicant (ibid., see also, among other authorities,
Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, § 85, 19 December 2018).
125. The Court cannot, however, base its decision on facts that are not
covered by the complaint, it being understood that, even if the Court has
jurisdiction to review circumstances complained of in the light of the
entirety of the Convention or to “view the facts in a different manner”, it is
nevertheless limited by the facts presented by the applicants in the light of
national law. However, this does not prevent an applicant from clarifying or
elaborating upon his or her initial submissions during the Convention
proceedings. The Court has to take account not only of the original
application but also of the additional documents intended to complete the
latter by eliminating any initial omissions or obscurities. Likewise, the
Court may clarify those facts ex officio (see Radomilja and Others, cited
above, §§ 121-22 and 126).
126. In the case at hand in their initial application to the Court the
applicants provided the description of their version of the events (as
described in paragraphs 5-11 above) and submitted documents relating to
the domestic civil proceedings instituted by them. They complained, inter
alia, that they had been brought to Azerbaijan by Serbaz and had been
“subjected to forced labour” in violation of domestic and international law,
had worked without contracts and without work permits, had their
documents taken away, had their freedom of movement restricted, and had
not been paid their wages starting from May 2009. The applicants further
complained that their grievances had not been properly assessed by the
domestic courts whose judgments were unreasoned. They also complained
that the domestic courts had failed to protect their pecuniary interests and
address the issues of non-pecuniary damage suffered by them. They relied
34
on Article 6 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the

Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
127. On 6 July 2017 the respondent Government were given notice of
the applicants’ complaints with the questions asked under Articles 4 § 2 and
6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and
the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. In respect of
Article 4 § 2 of the Convention, questions were put to the Government as to
whether there had been a violation of that provision on account of a failure
by the State to fulfil its positive obligations thereunder.
128. In this connection, as a master of characterisation to be given in law
to the facts of the case, by virtue of the jura novit curia principle, the Court
considers that the applicants’ submissions in their initial application form, in
substance, amounted to a complaint under Article 4 § 2 of the Convention,
even though the applicants did not expressly refer to that provision. The
Government has not made any express objections in this regard and, on the
contrary, accepted that human trafficking and forced and compulsory labour
constituted “the subject matter of the applicants’ complaints”.
129. Subsequently, in their comments to the Government’s observations,
the applicants noted that Article 4 of the Convention required member
States to penalise and prosecute effectively any acts contrary to that Article,
in addition to other positive obligations, such as putting in place a
legislative and administrative framework to prohibit and punish those acts.
Responding in particular to the Government’s objection that the applicants
had not exhausted the domestic remedies because they had not lodged a
criminal complaint in respect of their grievances concerning forced labour
and human trafficking (see paragraph 171 below), the applicants referred to
Article 265.4 of the CCP, under which the civil courts were to inform the
prosecuting authorities if, upon examination of a civil claim, they found an
appearance of elements of a criminal offence in the actions of the parties to
the case or other persons. They also noted that the domestic authorities had
failed to duly investigate their allegations despite having been “well aware”
of them (see paragraph 172 below).
130. In view of the above developments, the Court considers that the
Government’s objection summarised in paragraph 122 above can be
understood as arguing that the scope of the applicants’ in-substance
complaint under Article 4 § 2 of the Convention, as originally argued in the
initial application, had been limited to fairness of the civil proceedings only,
and that the subsequently raised arguments concerning the respondent
State’s failure to apply criminal-law mechanisms of protection were new
issues that fell outside the scope of the case, precluding the Court from
examining them.
131. However, the Court cannot accept that argument in the present
case. It is true that in their initial application the submissions made by the
applicants concerned, inter alia, various circumstances relating to the
35
alleged forced or compulsory labour and human trafficking to which they

had been subjected, and they complained expressly only of the decisions
unfavourable to them taken by the domestic civil courts, without mentioning
any criminal complaints or the State’s duty to institute and conduct an
effective criminal investigation. Nevertheless, the “factual submissions”
constitutive of the in-substance complaint under Article 4 § 2, as argued by
the applicants and as can be derived from the initial application assessed as
a whole, referred, firstly, to the treatment allegedly amounting to forced
labour and human trafficking and, secondly, in more general terms, to the
alleged failure of the State to take effective steps in respect of their
grievances concerning such treatment. In the Court’s view, the applicants’
subsequent submissions, albeit very brief, constituted an elaboration on this
complaint whereby they also specified the failure of the domestic authorities
to apply criminal-law mechanisms of protection. In other words, the
additional legal arguments made in the applicants’ observations constituted
an elaboration of the arguments which had been made in connection with
the original complaint based on the facts stated in the application form.
132. Moreover, in respect of the complaint under Article 4 § 2 of the
Convention in particular, the Court notes that the general framework of
positive obligations under that Article includes: (1) the duty to put in place a
legislative and administrative framework to prohibit and punish treatment
contrary to that provision; (2) the duty, in certain circumstances, to take
operational measures to protect victims or potential victims of such
treatment; and (3) a procedural obligation to investigate situations that may
potentially amount to such treatment (see paragraphs 182 et seq. below).
Having had regard to the applicants’ submissions, the Court notes that,
although they made a reference to the States’ duty to put in place the
relevant legislative and administrative framework, they did not make any
specific arguments concerning any alleged shortcomings of the legislative
and administrative network that was in place in the respondent State at the
material time. Neither did they argue that there had been any alleged failure
by the authorities to take any operational measures at the time when they
had been subjected to the alleged treatment complained of. Their arguments,
albeit brief, concerned only the domestic authorities’ and courts’ alleged
failure to take steps to effectively examine and investigate their allegations.
133. Accordingly, the Court finds that the scope of the case before it, in
terms of its legal characterisation, includes legal issues under Articles 4 § 2
and 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
As to the complaint under Article 4 § 2 of the Convention in particular, its
scope in the present case concerns the respondent State’s alleged failure to
comply with the procedural obligation to investigate the allegations of
potential human trafficking and forced or compulsory labour. It is thus
essentially of a procedural nature.
36
134. The above finding is without prejudice to the further assessment

and conclusion as to the actual applicability and scope of protection
guaranteed under the Convention for the acts complained of by the
applicants (compare, mutatis mutandis, S.M. v. Croatia, cited above, § 229).
135. As to the Government’s objection concerning the submissions
made by the third party, the Court notes that the Government did not contest
the veracity of the documents submitted by the third party, and instead
merely objected to their examination by the Court. The Court reiterates, in
this respect, that it has to take account not only of the original application
but also of any additional documents and that it may even clarify facts ex
officio (see paragraph 125 above). Moreover, in accordance with its broad
margin of appreciation in this respect, the Court will draw conclusions
supported by the free evaluation of all evidence, including such inferences
as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions (see Merabishvili
v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 315, 28 November 2017). The Court also
takes note of the specific context of the present case, which involves matters
concerning alleged cross-border trafficking in human beings, which give
rise also to issues of effective cooperation between the relevant authorities
of the States concerned (see paragraph 191 below). The Court considers that
certain submissions and documents presented by the third party, in
particular those described in paragraphs 35-59 above, are directly relevant
to the factual and legal issues that fall within the scope of the case and,
indeed, eliminate certain factual omissions and obscurities in the
submissions by the applicants, as well as the submissions made by the
respondent Government, which did not include any relevant documents. In
particular, those submissions and documents clarify certain factual matters
relating to the issue of the alleged failure by the respondent State to comply
with its positive obligations under Article 4 § 2 of the Convention, a matter
covered by the scope of the case. Accordingly, they must be taken into
account.
136. Lastly, as to the information concerning the criminal proceedings
conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the judgments adopted in the
framework of those proceedings after the present application had been
lodged with the Court, the Court notes that, while those judgments contain
references to relevant facts, the assessments made and conclusions reached
in those proceedings are not the subject of the Court’s examination in the
present case. Within the scope of the present case, the Court is called upon
to examine only the complaints raised against the respondent State which
correspond to the time period prior to the date of lodging of the present
application with the Court.
37
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 4 § 2 OF THE

CONVENTION
137. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

to the Convention and, in substance, on Article 4 § 2 of the Convention, the
applicants complained that they had been victims of forced labour and
human trafficking, that they had worked without contracts and work permits
in Azerbaijan, that they had their passports taken away and their freedom of
movement restricted by their employer, and that their wages had not been
paid starting from May 2009 and until their departure from Azerbaijan.
They further complained that the respondent State had failed to comply with
its procedural obligation under the Convention and that the domestic courts
examining their complaints had delivered unreasoned decisions.
138. Having regard to the circumstances complained of by the applicants
and the manner in which their complaints were formulated, the Court
considers it appropriate to examine the applicants’ complaints under
Article 4 § 2 of the Convention alone (for a similar approach, see, for
example, T.I. and Others v. Greece, 40311/10, § 97, 18 July 2019). Article 4
§ 2 provides as follows:
“2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.”
A. Admissibility
1. Victim status
139. The Court notes that the Government has not contested the
applicants’ victim status. However, this issue concerns a matter which goes
to the Court’s jurisdiction and which it is not prevented from examining of
its own motion (see Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy
v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 93, 27 June 2017). In order to be able to
lodge an application in accordance with Article 34, an applicant must be
able to show that he or she was “directly affected” by the measure
complained of (see Tănase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 104, ECHR 2010,
and Lambert and Others v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, § 89, ECHR 2015
(extracts)).
140. The Court notes that the copies of passport pages submitted by two
of the applicants contained only illegible images of what might have been
Azerbaijani visas, that four of the applicants did not submit any copies of
their passports or any other travel documents and that thirteen other
applicants submitted copies of their passports without any pages containing
an Azerbaijani visa or Azerbaijani border entry or exit stamps. At no point
in the Court proceedings did the nineteen applicants concerned provide any
explanation for their failure to submit clear documentary proof that they had
been in Azerbaijan or, at least, provide more concrete information as to
38
exact time periods during which each of them had worked in Azerbaijan.
Therefore, a question arises as to whether those applicants have adequately
substantiated their claims of having been victims of the alleged violation.
141. The Court notes in this respect that all of the applicants, including
those nineteen mentioned above, provided a jointly summarised version of
the events, even if brief and lacking individualised factual details (see
paragraphs 5-9 above). At the domestic level, they were all parties to the
relevant court proceedings (see paragraphs 18-34 above) and the domestic
courts never called into question the applicants’ submission that they all had
worked in Azerbaijan. Moreover, the defendant in those proceedings,
Serbaz, did not argue that any of the applicants had not been among those
workers who had been “seconded” to Azerbaijan. Neither has the
Government expressly argued that any of the applicants had not been in
Azerbaijan.
142. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that all of the
applicants can claim to be victims of the alleged violation.
2. Applicability of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention

(a) The parties’ submissions
143. As noted above, the Government accepted that human trafficking
and forced and compulsory labour constituted “the subject matter of the
applicants’ complaints”. However, while not expressly raising any
objections as to the applicability, the Government made submissions which,
in their essence, can be understood as arguing that Article 4 § 2 of the
Convention was not applicable to those complaints. In particular, the
Government submitted that the applicants had not made out an “arguable
claim” concerning the conditions of their work. The Government
maintained that the applicants had not submitted any evidence concerning
their allegations before either the domestic courts or the Court, at least in the
form of photographs or video recordings of their alleged working and living
conditions. Their complaints had been limited to vague and general
statements and they had not provided a detailed account of the alleged
events in order to “clarify the nature and extent of their problems”. They
had not even provided detailed information as to the dates of their arrival in
and departure from Azerbaijan. As to the letter of the Danish Refugee
Council, the Government argued that the time when that organisation had
allegedly delivered humanitarian aid to migrants (November 2009) “did not
correspond” to the allegation that, by November 2009, the applicants had
left Azerbaijan and, moreover, did not specify the “category of migrants”
and their names. Furthermore, the Government maintained that the
applicants had not submitted a copy of the ASTRA Report to the domestic
courts.
39
144. The applicants reiterated their assertion that they had been
subjected to human trafficking and forced labour and noted that they had
submitted relevant evidence, including the ASTRA report, to the Court and
the domestic courts.
(b) The third party’s comments

145. The third party, the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
submitted that the available materials and reports contained sufficient
elements supporting the applicants’ assertions. Moreover, taking into
account the situation of vulnerability in which the applicants had found
themselves, such as alleged restriction of their freedom of movement and
allegedly limited contacts with the outside world, absence of passports or
other documents in their possession which caused fear of the authorities,
surveillance by security guards, and lack of money, it would have been
objectively difficult for the applicants at the time to collect physical
evidence to support their allegations.
(c) The Court’s assessment

(i) The concepts of forced or compulsory labour and trafficking in human beings
146. The English word “labour” is often used in the narrow sense of
manual work, but it also bears the broad meaning of the French word
"travail" and it is the latter that should be adopted in the present context.
The Court finds corroboration of this in the definition included in Article 2
§ 1 of Convention no. 29 (“all work or service”, “tout travail ou service”), in
Article 4 § 3(d) of the European Convention (“any work or service”, “tout
travail ou service”) and in the very name of the International Labour
Organisation (Organisation Internationale du Travail), whose activities are
in no way limited to the sphere of manual labour (see Van der Mussele
v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 33, Series A no. 70, and S.M. v. Croatia,
cited above, § 282).
147. The term “forced labour” brings to mind the idea of physical or
mental coercion. As to the term “compulsory labour”, it cannot refer just to
any form of legal compulsion or obligation. For example, work to be carried
out in pursuance of a freely negotiated contract cannot be regarded as falling
within the scope of Article 4 of the Convention on the sole ground that one
of the parties has undertaken with the other to do that work and will be
subject to sanctions if he does not honour his promise. What there has to be
is work “exacted under the menace of any penalty” and also performed
against the will of the person concerned, that is, work for which he “has not
offered himself voluntarily”. In Van der Mussele (cited above) the Court
found that “relative weight” was to be attached to the argument regarding
the applicant’s “prior consent” and thus opted for an approach which took
account of all the circumstances of the case. In particular, it observed that,
40
in certain cases or circumstances, a given “service could not be treated as

having been voluntarily accepted beforehand” by an individual.
Accordingly, the validity of the consent had to be assessed in the light of all
the circumstances of the case (see Chowdury and Others v. Greece,
no. 21884/15, § 90, 30 March 2017).
148. The notion of “forced or compulsory labour” under Article 4 of the
Convention aims to protect against instances of serious exploitation,
irrespective of whether, in the particular circumstances of a case, they are
related to the specific human trafficking context (see S.M. v. Croatia, cited
above, § 300).
149. In the case of Chowdury and Others (cited above) the Court
elaborated on the concept of “consent” stressing that “where an employer
abuses his power or takes advantage of the vulnerability of his workers in
order to exploit them, they do not offer themselves for work voluntarily”.
Thus, the Court further stressed that “[t]he prior consent of the victim is not
sufficient to exclude the characterisation of work as forced labour” and that
“[t]he question whether an individual offers himself for work voluntarily is
a factual question which must be examined in the light of all the relevant
circumstances of a case” (see S.M. v. Croatia, cited above, § 285).
150. In order to clarify the concept of “forced or compulsory labour”
within the meaning of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention, the Court would
point out that any work demanded from an individual under the threat of a
“punishment” does not necessarily constitute “forced or compulsory labour”
prohibited by that provision. It is necessary to take into account, in
particular, the nature and volume of the activity in question. These
circumstances make it possible to distinguish “forced labour” from work
which can reasonably be required on the basis of family assistance or
cohabitation. In this regard, the Court in Van der Mussele (cited above)
relied in particular on the concept of “disproportionate burden” in
determining whether a trainee lawyer had been subject to compulsory labour
when he was required to act, free of charge, to defend clients as assigned
counsel (see Chowdury and Others, cited above, § 91).
151. The notion of “penalty” is to be understood in the broad sense, as
confirmed by the use of the term “any penalty”. The “penalty” may go as far
as physical violence or restraint, but it can also take subtler forms, of a
psychological nature, such as threats to denounce victims to the police or
immigration authorities when their employment status is illegal (see C.N.
and V. v. France, no. 67724/09, § 77, 11 October 2012; Tibet Menteş and
Others v. Turkey, nos. 57818/10 and 4 others, § 67, 24 October 2017; and
S.M. v. Croatia, cited above, § 284).
152. The Court considers that trafficking in human beings, by its very
nature and aim of exploitation, is based on the exercise of powers attaching
to the right of ownership. It treats human beings as commodities to be
bought and sold and put to forced labour, often for little or no payment,
41
usually in the sex industry but also elsewhere. It implies close surveillance
of the activities of victims, whose movements are often circumscribed. It
involves the use of violence and threats against victims, who live and work
under poor conditions. It is described in the explanatory report
accompanying the Council of Europe Convention on Action against
Trafficking in Human Beings as the modern form of the old worldwide
slave trade (see Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 281,
ECHR 2010 (extracts), and M. and Others v. Italy and Bulgaria,
no. 40020/03, § 151, 31 July 2012).
153. There can be no doubt that trafficking threatens the human dignity
and fundamental freedoms of its victims and cannot be considered
compatible with a democratic society and the values expounded in the
Convention. Given the Convention’s special features as a human rights
treaty and the fact that it is a living instrument which should be interpreted
in the light of present-day conditions there are good reasons to accept that
the global phenomenon of trafficking in human beings runs counter to the
spirit and purpose of Article 4 and thus falls within the scope of the
guarantees offered by that provision (see S.M. v. Croatia, cited above,
§§ 292 and 303).
154. While Article 4 of the Convention refers only to three concepts,
namely slavery and servitude in Article 4 § 1 and forced or compulsory
labour in Article 4 § 2, the Court reiterates that, as it has clarified in its
Grand Chamber judgment of S.M. v. Croatia, the concept of trafficking in
human beings, in all its possible forms, falls within the scope of Article 4 of
the Convention taken as a whole (ibid., §§ 286-97 and 303). Accordingly,
the concept of human trafficking for the purpose of forced or compulsory
labour falls within the scope of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention.
155. Impugned conduct may give rise to an issue of human trafficking
under Article 4 of the Convention only if all the constituent elements
(action, means, purpose) of the international definition of human trafficking
are present. In other words, in keeping with the principle of harmonious
interpretation of the Convention and other instruments of international law,
and in view of the fact that the Convention itself does not define the concept
of human trafficking, it is not possible to characterise conduct or a situation
as an issue of human trafficking unless it fulfils the criteria established for
that phenomenon in international law. From the perspective of Article 4 of
the Convention the concept of human trafficking covers trafficking in
human beings, whether national or transnational, whether or not connected
with organised crime, in so far as the constituent elements of the
international definition of trafficking in human beings, under the Council of
Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and the
Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially
Women and Children supplementing the United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organised Crime, are present. Such conduct or such a
42
situation of human trafficking then falls within the scope of Article 4 of the
Convention (ibid., §§ 289-90, 296-97 and 303).
(ii) Whether the circumstances of the present case gave rise to an issue under
Article 4 § 2 of the Convention
156. As regards the applicability of the protection under Article 4 in

relation to the matters complained of in the present case, the Court notes
that when an applicant’s complaint is essentially of a procedural nature as in
the present case, it must examine whether, in the circumstances of a
particular case, the applicants made an arguable claim or whether there was
prima facie evidence of the applicants’ having been subjected to such
prohibited treatment. This corresponds in essence to the Court’s approach in
other cases concerning, in particular, Article 3 of the Convention. A
conclusion as to whether the domestic authorities’ procedural obligation
arose has to be based on the circumstances prevailing at the time when the
relevant allegations were made or when the prima facie evidence of
treatment contrary to Article 4 was brought to the authorities’ attention (see,
mutatis mutandis, S.M. v. Croatia, cited above, §§ 324-25, with further
references).
157. The Court also reiterates that the question whether a particular
situation involved all the constituent elements of “human trafficking” and/or
gives rise to a separate issue of forced or compulsory labour is a factual
question which must be examined in the light of all the relevant
circumstances of a case (see S.M. v. Croatia, cited above, § 303 (iv), and
Chowdury and Others, cited above, § 101).
158. The Court notes that the grievances about the situation at Serbaz
generally concern approximately the period from May to November 2009.
Although the applicants did not provide the exact dates of their arrival in
and departure from Azerbaijan, it appears from the documents available in
the file (see paragraph 20 above), coupled with the applicants’ assertion that
most of them had stayed in Azerbaijan for periods of six months or longer
and the corroborating information as to the length of stay (six months or
longer) in the Anti-Trafficking Department’s letter of 18 November 2010
(see paragraph 49 above), that the period during which the applicants
worked in Azerbaijan coincides, either fully or at least partially, with the
period in respect of which the grievances were raised.
159. The applicants complained before the domestic civil courts that
their passports had been taken away from them for the period of their stay in
Azerbaijan, that no work permits had been obtained for them, that their
living conditions had been poor and unsanitary, that they had no access to
adequate medical care, that their freedom of movement had been restricted
by their employer, that they had not been paid their wages and that they had
been subjected to punishments in the form of fines, beatings and detentions.
43
160. The Court notes that the applicants’ factual submissions before the
domestic courts and the Court were generally brief and did not provide
details specific to each applicant, or at least some of the applicants.
Nevertheless, the general description of the working and living conditions
provided, however scant it might have been in the applicants’ civil claim,
pointed to several indicators of potential treatment contrary to Article 4 of
the Convention.
161. Moreover, the applicants also referred, both before the domestic
courts and the Court, to additional material supporting their submissions. In
particular, they referred to the ASTRA Report, the contents of which
provided a more detailed account of the allegations made concerning the
treatment of workers by Serbaz and contained additional information as to
the potential situation of forced or compulsory labour and human
trafficking. The Court considers that the existence and contents of the
ASTRA Report was sufficiently brought to the attention of the domestic
courts.
162. The ASTRA Report provided more details and additional
information concerning the allegations raised by the applicants, in particular
concerning, inter alia, the circumstances in which workers were hired in
their home countries, absence of not only work permits but also residence
permits, alleged compulsory work even when workers were sick, alleged
threats that workers would be arrested by the local police if they left the
accommodation without their passports and the employer’s permission,
alleged lack of proper nutrition, alleged excessive overtime work, and
several alleged incidents of alleged use of force and detentions.
163. While the ASTRA Report expressly stated that its contents
constituted “initial information”, those contents were based on statements of
workers who were reportedly in the same or similar situation as the
applicants during the same period (see paragraphs 103 et seq. above), and
those statements may have even included statements by some of the
applicants. It is true that an NGO report would not, in itself, have significant
evidentiary value without further investigation. However, given the area of
expertise of the NGOs involved in preparation of the report, which was
assistance to migrant workers and combating human trafficking, the prima
facie information provided in it constituted material corroborating the
applicants’ submissions.
164. The Court observes that there are some apparent potential
inconsistencies between the applicants’ statements and statements reported
in the ASTRA Report, as well as some internal inconsistencies within the
statements in the ASTRA Report. For example, while the applicants noted
that they had not been paid at all since May 2009, the ASTRA Report noted
in one section that the complete stoppage of payments had occurred in
October 2009, but later stated that it had occurred in May 2009 (see
paragraphs 103 and 110 above). The latter also noted, in various parts, that
44
workers had been paid but less than promised, that some workers “could not
eventually recover their wages” at all, but that nonetheless, upon their
departure from Azerbaijan, workers had been paid some amount of money.
Nevertheless, the Court considers that circumstances might have varied with
regard to each worker’s individual situation and, that despite some
inconsistencies in statement summaries, the overall content of the
applicants’ allegations and the allegations contained in the ASTRA Report
were, on the whole, mutually consistent as to possible non-payment or
delayed payment of wages and reduced wages at various time periods
starting from May 2009.
165. Furthermore, the Court notes that there was other information
referred to by the applicants or otherwise apparently brought to the attention
of the domestic courts and other authorities, such as the letter by the Danish
Refugee Council (see paragraph 11 above), information contained in the
AMC’s letters to the law-enforcement authorities (see paragraph 37 above),
the witness statement of the AMC representative before the Baku Court of
Appeal (see paragraph 31 above), and the information contained in the legal
assistance requests by the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina
(see paragraphs 43-44 above). All of the above provided corroborating
information concerning workers who had reportedly been in the same or
similar situation as the applicants during the same time period. As to the
Government’s argument about inconsistency between the time period
mentioned in the letter by the Danish Refugee Council and the date of
departure of the last Serbaz workers from Azerbaijan, the Court, having had
regard to other information and documents in the case file (see
paragraphs 16, 26 (ii) and 114 above), notes that various sources provided
different or inexact information as to the date of departure of the last
workers and that, therefore, the time period mentioned in the letter was not
necessarily inconsistent with that information.
166. The Court considers that the above-mentioned allegations
concerning physical and other forms of punishments, retention of
documents and restriction of movement explained by threats of possible
arrests of the applicants by the local police because of their irregular stay in
Azerbaijan (without work and residence permits) were indicative of possible
physical and mental coercion and work extracted under the menace of
penalty. Moreover, allegations concerning non-payment of wages and
“fines” in the form of deductions from wages, in conjunction with the
absence of work and residence permits, disclosed a potential situation of the
applicants’ particular vulnerability as irregular migrants without resources.
167. Moreover, even assuming that, at the time of their recruitment, the
applicants had offered themselves for work voluntarily and believed in good
faith that they would receive their wages, the above-mentioned allegations
suggest that the situation might have subsequently changed as a result of
their employer’s conduct. In this connection, the Court reiterates that where
45
an employer abuses his power or takes advantage of the vulnerability of his

workers in order to exploit them, they do not offer themselves for work
voluntarily. The prior consent of the victim is not sufficient to exclude the
characterisation of work as forced labour (compare Chowdury and Others,
cited above, §§ 96-97). The Court also takes note of the allegations of
forced excessively long work shifts, lack of proper nutrition and medical
care, and the general picture of the coercive and intimidating atmosphere
within Serbaz. It considers that all of the above allegations, taken together,
amounted to an arguable claim that the applicants were subjected to work or
service which was exacted from them under the menace of penalty and for
which they had not offered themselves voluntarily. There was accordingly
an arguable claim of “forced or compulsory labour” within the meaning of
Article 4 § 2 of the Convention.
168. As to whether there was an issue of human trafficking, the Court
reiterates that for such an issue to arise all the constituent elements of
human trafficking (action, means, purpose) must be present (see paragraph
155 above). As to the “action”, the fact that the applicants were recruited in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, brought in groups to Azerbaijan by a private
company and settled collectively in designated accommodation, which they
allegedly could not leave without permission by the employer, could have
constituted “recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of
persons”. As for the “means”, the information in the ASTRA Report
concerning the circumstances of recruitment, in particular lack of proper
employment contracts (which instead were replaced by questionnaires
signed in one copy and kept by the employer) and promises of higher wages
than actually paid, disclosed an alleged situation that may have amounted to
recruitment by means of deception or fraud. As for the “purpose”, the
conclusion reached in paragraph 167 above discloses also the potential
purpose of exploitation in the form of forced labour.
169. Having regard to the above, the Court finds that, in their
submissions before the domestic courts and the Court, the applicants have
demonstrated the existence of an “arguable claim” that they had been
subjected to cross-border human trafficking and to forced or compulsory
labour on the territory of Azerbaijan by, among others, some alleged
perpetrators who were resident in Azerbaijan. In due course below, the
Court will further assess whether the applicants availed themselves of the
proper domestic avenues of redress and whether their arguable claim could
be considered to have been “sufficiently drawn to the attention” of, inter
alia, relevant law-enforcement authorities.
170. For the reasons stated above, Article 4 § 2 is applicable.
3. Exhaustion of domestic remedies

171. The Government further argued that the applicants had failed to
exhaust the relevant domestic remedies by failing to lodge a criminal
46
complaint in relation to their allegations of forced or compulsory labour and

trafficking or by failing to lodge a civil claim concerning their
property-related claims against the proper defendant. In particular, the
Government submitted that forced or compulsory labour and trafficking
were phenomena that could not be combatted solely through civil action and
required criminal sanctions in order to be suppressed. Despite these criminal
offences being punishable under the relevant provisions of the Criminal
Code, the applicants had failed to raise their grievances before the
prosecuting authorities. As to the civil-law component of their grievances
relating to the alleged material damages, the civil action brought by the
applicants had been directed against the wrong defendant, Serbaz, whereas,
as established by the domestic courts, they had been employed by Acora.
Despite this finding, the applicants failed to lodge any civil claims against
Acora either in Azerbaijan or elsewhere. Lastly, the applicants never raised
before the national authorities a complaint concerning the alleged failure by
the respondent State to comply with its positive obligations under Article 4
§ 2 of the Convention.
172. The applicants argued that the civil action was a “sufficient legal
mechanism” for redressing their grievances. They also noted, in particular,
that, under Article 265.4 of the CCP, the civil courts were to inform the
prosecuting authorities if, upon examination of a civil claim, they found an
appearance of elements of a criminal offence in the actions of the parties to
the case or other persons. However, the domestic courts had not applied this
measure despite the seriousness of the applicants’ allegations. Lastly, the
applicants submitted that the domestic authorities had been “well aware”
about the content of their allegations but had failed to adequately investigate
them.
173. The third party, the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
submitted that, in the circumstances of the case, the applicants had both
directly and indirectly raised their grievances before the domestic
authorities, providing them with an opportunity to remedy any alleged
violations. In particular, in their civil claim, the applicants had complained
about the alleged retention of their passports, restriction of their freedom of
movement by their employer, non-payment of wages, physical punishments,
poor living conditions, and so on. The third party appeared to suggest that,
in the context of the respondent State’s international obligations as to
prevention of human trafficking and forced labour and as to appropriate
regulatory measures and immigration rules to be applied to businesses
which might be used as a “cover for human smuggling”, the domestic civil
courts in the present case had not adequately examined the above-mentioned
submissions by the applicants.
174. Moreover, the third party noted that the applicants’ grievances had
been notified to both the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor
General’s Office by AMC, which had argued that they had been subjected
47
to forced labour and human trafficking and requested to initiate a criminal

investigation in that respect. AMC had subsequently challenged the
law-enforcement authorities’ inactivity before the domestic courts. Lastly,
the Azerbaijani authorities had been informed about the applicants’ and
other workers’ grievances concerning the situation at Serbaz by way of the
request for mutual legal assistance submitted by the Prosecutor’s Office of
Bosnia and Herzegovina in April 2010. According to the third party, in such
circumstances, the matter had been sufficiently brought to the attention of
the authorities and they must have acted of their own motion to investigate
it and could not leave it to the initiative of the victims to lodge a formal
criminal complaint.
175. The Court reiterates that, in principle, for complaints concerning
treatment contrary to Article 4, the adequate remedy to be pursued is a
criminal complaint (see L.E. v. Greece, no. 71545/12, § 56, 21 January
2016; see also paragraphs 185-187 below). In the present case, the Court
considers that the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies as argued by
the parties should be joined to the merits, since it is closely linked to the
substance of the applicants’ complaints concerning the alleged failure by the
respondent State to comply with its positive obligations.
4. Conclusion as to admissibility
176. The Court considers that this complaint is neither manifestly
ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the
Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties’ submissions
(a) The applicants

177. The applicants reiterated their complaints (see paragraphs 126 and
137 above). They further elaborated on those complaints by arguing that the
domestic courts had failed to notify the prosecuting authorities of the
elements of a criminal offence that could be detected in their civil claim and
that the authorities had generally failed to comply with their positive
obligations under Article 4 of the Convention, including the duty to penalise
and prosecute effectively any acts constituting treatment contrary to that
Article (see paragraphs 129 and 172 above).
(b) The Government

178. The Government’s submissions were essentially limited to their
objections concerning the scope of the case and admissibility of the
complaints as summarised above.
48
2. The third party’s comments

179. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which intervened
under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention, noted that, even accepting that the
legal framework which was in place in the respondent State was compliant
with the requirements of Article 4 of the Convention, that legal framework
had not been effectively applied in practice. The very fact that workers
worked on construction of the public buildings commissioned by the State
while staying in the country on the basis of tourist visas raised the question
of the effectiveness of the legal framework governing the situation of
foreign workers. Moreover, the domestic authorities had not taken any
concrete steps to investigate the relevant allegations even though they were
aware of them from multiple sources, including international organisations
and the US Department of State. Furthermore, the domestic civil courts
examining the applicants’ claim had failed to protect property-related
interests stemming from a legitimate expectation to receive their wages and
delivered unreasoned decisions ignoring the arguments concerning forced
labour and the realities of the situation. The third party considered that one
of the reasons for the above outcome might have been the quality of the
domestic laws on tourism, migrant workers and employment rights, the
provisions of which were broad and imprecise.
3. The Court’s assessment
(a) General principles

180. The Court reiterates that under Article 4 of the Convention the
State may be held responsible not only for its direct actions but also for its
failure to effectively protect the victims of slavery, servitude, or forced or
compulsory labour by virtue of its positive obligations (see C.N. and V.
v. France, cited above, § 69, with further references).
181. Cases relating to human trafficking under Article 4 typically
involve an issue of the States’ positive obligations under the Convention.
Indeed, the applicants in these cases are normally victims of trafficking or
trafficking-related conduct by another private party, whose actions cannot
attract the direct responsibility of the State (see J. and Others v. Austria,
no. 58216/12, §§ 108-09, 17 January 2017, and S.M. v. Croatia, cited above,
§ 304).
182. The general framework of positive obligations under Article 4
includes: (1) the duty to put in place a legislative and administrative
framework to prohibit and punish trafficking; (2) the duty, in certain
circumstances, to take operational measures to protect victims, or potential
victims, of trafficking; and (3) a procedural obligation to investigate
situations of potential trafficking. In general, the first two aspects of the
positive obligations can be denoted as substantive, whereas the third aspect
49
designates the States’ (positive) procedural obligation (see S.M. v. Croatia,

(i) Substantive aspects of the positive obligations
183. In order to comply with their positive obligation to penalise and

effectively prosecute the practices referred to in Article 4 of the Convention,
member States are required to put in place a legislative and administrative
framework that prohibit and punish forced or compulsory labour, servitude
and slavery (see Chowdury and Others, cited above, § 105). So, in order to
determine whether there has been a violation of Article 4, the relevant legal
or regulatory framework in place must be taken into account (see Rantsev,
cited above, § 284; C.N. and V. v. France, cited above, § 105; and S.M.
v. Croatia, cited above, § 305).
184. As with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, Article 4 may, in
certain circumstances, require a State to take operational measures to protect
victims, or potential victims, of treatment in breach of that Article. In order
for a positive obligation to take operational measures to arise in the
circumstances of a particular case, it must be demonstrated that the State
authorities were aware, or ought to have been aware that an identified
individual had been, or was at real and immediate risk of being subjected to
such treatment. In the case of an answer in the affirmative, there will be a
violation of Article 4 of the Convention where the authorities fail to take
appropriate measures within the scope of their powers to remove the
individual from that situation or risk. Bearing in mind the difficulties
involved in policing modern societies and the operational choices which
must be made in terms of priorities and resources, the obligation to take
operational measures must, however, be interpreted in a way which does not
impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see
C.N. v. the United Kingdom, no. 4239/08, §§ 67-68, 13 November 2012).
(ii) Positive procedural obligation
185. Like Articles 2 and 3, Article 4 also entails a procedural obligation

to investigate where there is a credible suspicion that an individual’s rights
under that Article have been violated (see C.N. v. the United Kingdom, cited
above, § 69, and S.M. v. Croatia, cited above, §§ 324-25). The procedural
obligation under Article 4 of the Convention, as an element of the broader
concept of positive obligations, essentially relates to the domestic
authorities’ duty to apply in practice the relevant criminal-law mechanisms
put in place to prohibit and punish conduct contrary to that provision. This
entails the requirements of an effective investigation concerning allegations
of treatment contrary to Article 4 of the Convention. The procedural
obligation under the converging principles of Articles 2 and 3 of the
50
Convention informs the specific content of the procedural obligation under

Article 4 of the Convention (see S.M. v. Croatia, cited above, §§ 308-11).
186. Whereas the general scope of the State’s positive obligations might
differ between cases where the treatment contrary to the Convention has
been inflicted through the involvement of State agents and cases where
violence is inflicted by private individuals, the procedural requirements are
similar (ibid., § 312).
187. These procedural requirements primarily concern the authorities’
duty to institute and conduct an effective investigation. As explained in the
Court’s case-law, that means instituting and conducting an investigation
capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and of identifying and –
if appropriate – punishing those responsible (ibid., § 313, and Rantsev, cited
above, § 288). The authorities must act of their own motion once the matter
has come to their attention. In particular, they cannot leave it to the initiative
of the victim to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigatory
procedures (see S.M. v. Croatia, cited above, § 314). For an investigation to
be effective, it must be independent from those implicated in the events. A
requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in all cases
but where the possibility of removing the individual from the harmful
situation is available, the investigation must be undertaken as a matter of
urgency. The victim or the next-of-kin must be involved in the procedure to
the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests (Rantsev, cited
above, § 288; L.E. v. Greece, cited above, § 68; and C.N. v. the United
Kingdom, cited above, § 69).
188. The procedural obligation is a requirement of means and not of
results. There is no absolute right to obtain the prosecution or conviction of
any particular person where there were no culpable failures in seeking to
hold perpetrators of criminal offences accountable. Thus, the fact that an
investigation ends without concrete, or with only limited, results is not
indicative of any failings as such. Moreover, the procedural obligation must
not be interpreted in such a way as to impose an impossible or
disproportionate burden on the authorities. Nevertheless, the authorities
must take whatever reasonable steps they can to collect evidence and
elucidate the circumstances of the case. In particular, the investigation’s
conclusions must be based on thorough, objective and impartial analysis of
all relevant elements. Failing to follow an obvious line of inquiry
undermines to a decisive extent the investigation’s ability to establish the
circumstances of the case and the identity of those responsible. As to the
level of scrutiny to be applied by the Court in this regard, it is important to
stress that, although the Court has recognised that it must be cautious in
taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this is not
rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case, it has to
apply a “particularly thorough scrutiny” even if certain domestic
51
proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see S.M.

v. Croatia, cited above, §§ 315-17, with further references).
189. Compliance with the procedural obligation must be assessed on the
basis of several essential parameters. These elements are interrelated and
each of them, taken separately, does not amount to an end in itself. They are
criteria which, taken jointly, enable the degree of effectiveness of the
investigation to be assessed. The possible defects in the relevant
proceedings and the decision-making process must amount to significant
flaws in order to raise an issue under Article 4. In other words, the Court is
not concerned with allegations of errors or isolated omissions but only
significant shortcomings in the proceedings and the relevant
decision-making process, namely those that are capable of undermining the
investigation’s capability of establishing the circumstances of the case or the
person responsible (ibid., §§ 319-20, with further references).
190. Moreover, and in general terms, the Court considers that the
obligation to investigate effectively is binding, in such matters, on the
law-enforcement and judicial authorities. Where those authorities establish
that an employer has had recourse to human trafficking and forced labour,
they should act accordingly, within their respective spheres of competence,
pursuant to the relevant criminal-law provisions (see Chowdury and Others,
191. The Court reiterates that trafficking is a problem which is often not
confined to the domestic arena. When a person is trafficked from one State
to another, trafficking offences may occur in the State of origin, any State of
transit and the State of destination. Relevant evidence and witnesses may be
located in all States. Although the Palermo Protocol is silent on the question
of jurisdiction, the Anti-Trafficking Convention explicitly requires each
Member State to establish jurisdiction over any trafficking offence
committed in its territory. Such an approach is, in the Court’s view, only
logical in light of the general obligation, incumbent on all States under
Article 4 of the Convention to investigate alleged trafficking offences. In
addition to the obligation to conduct a domestic investigation into events
occurring on their own territories, member States are also subject to a duty
in cross-border trafficking cases to cooperate effectively with the relevant
authorities of other States concerned in the investigation of events which
occurred outside their territories (see Rantsev, cited above, § 289).
(b) Application of the above principles to the present case

192. At the outset, having had regard to the relevant provisions of the
domestic criminal law and the relevant international treaties ratified by
Azerbaijan (see paragraphs 71-72 and 96-99 above) and other relevant
domestic legal and regulatory framework (see, in particular,
paragraphs 79-95 above), the Court notes that at the relevant time the
domestic legal system provided for the criminal law mechanisms protecting
52
individuals from human trafficking and forced labour, as well as some legal
framework regulating businesses that could potentially be used as a cover
for human trafficking, and immigration rules that could arguably address
relevant concerns relating to encouragement, facilitation or tolerance of
trafficking. However, the Court need not examine the domestic legal
framework further since the applicants did not complain specifically in that
respect. As noted above, their complaint is rather of a procedural nature
relating to a lack of an appropriate response of the domestic authorities to
their allegations of having been subjected to forced or compulsory labour
and human trafficking (see paragraphs 132-134 above). The Court will thus
limit its assessment to this procedural aspect of the State’s positive
obligations.
(i) Whether an obligation to investigate arose in the present case
193. As the Court has found above, the totality of the applicants’
arguments and submissions concerning their irregular situation and their
working and living conditions, including those made in the domestic civil
proceedings, constituted an “arguable claim” of treatment contrary to
Article 4 of the Convention (see paragraph 169 above).
194. In addition, the Court considers, for the reasons specified below,
that in the particular circumstances of this case the matter (that is, the
applicants’ “arguable claim”) was “sufficiently drawn” to the attention of
the relevant domestic authorities, in particular those responsible for
applying criminal-law mechanisms of protection, and that, therefore, an
obligation to investigate arose in the present case, even though the
applicants themselves had not lodged a formal criminal complaint.
195. In particular, the Azerbaijani authorities were aware of the ECRI
report of 2011 whose findings were later developed in the GRETA Report
(see paragraphs 118-119 above), according to which many employers
employing migrant workers in Azerbaijan, including in the construction
sector, had recourse to illegal employment practices and, as a result,
migrants employed illegally often found themselves vulnerable to serious
forms of abuse. Furthermore, the GRETA Report later observed that
law-enforcement officials in Azerbaijan reportedly had a tendency to see
potential cases of human trafficking for labour exploitation as mere labour
disputes between the worker and the employer and there seemed to be a
confusion between cases of human trafficking for labour exploitation and
disputes concerning salaries and other aspects of working conditions. In the
Court’s view, while far from being conclusive, the general context described
in those reports is relevant in the assessment of the facts of the case.
196. The Court further notes that, according to the documents submitted
by the third party, AMC sent two complaint letters to the Ministry of
Internal Affairs on 22 October 2009 and to the Prosecutor General’s Office
at an unspecified later date. AMC complained about the situation at Serbaz
53
and claimed that it required an investigation under the criminal-law

provisions on human trafficking. Moreover, according to the witness
statement of the AMC representative made at a later date before the Baku
Court of Appeal in the civil proceedings instituted by the applicants, she had
written to the Prosecutor General’s Office on behalf of 272 workers of
Serbaz (see paragraph 31 above). It also appears that AMC challenged the
law-enforcement authorities’ inactivity before the domestic courts and their
appeals concerning this matter reached the Supreme Court. The respondent
Government did not expressly challenge the veracity of the third party’s
submissions concerning the above-mentioned letters, judicial complaint and
related proceedings.
197. Subsequently, in April 2010 and again in 2011 and 2012 the
Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina applied to the Azerbaijani
law-enforcement authorities with legal-assistance requests, in which it
described the allegations made concerning the situation at Serbaz which had
taken place on the territory of Azerbaijan (see paragraphs 43-59 above).
198. In this connection, the Court notes that, in the context of positive
obligations under Article 3 of the Convention, which are similar to those
under Article 4 of the Convention, sufficiently detailed information
contained in an inter-State legal-assistance request concerning alleged grave
criminal offences which may have been committed on the territory of the
State receiving the request may amount to an “arguable claim” raised before
the authorities of that State, triggering its duty to investigate those
allegations further (see X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16,
§§ 200-01, 2 February 2021).
199. Finally, in their civil claim lodged in July 2010 the applicants also
provided an account of the relevant facts and the reasons why they
considered that they had been the victims of forced labour.
200. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court finds that the
applicants’ “arguable claim” was sufficiently and repeatedly drawn to the
attention of the domestic authorities in various ways, including AMC’s
letters to the law-enforcement authorities, legal-assistance requests
addressed to the law-enforcement authorities by the Prosecutor’s Office of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the civil claim lodged by the applicants with
the domestic courts, which must have informed the law-enforcement
authorities of it in the particular circumstances of the present case. Since the
authorities’ attention was “sufficiently drawn” to the allegations in question,
which constituted an arguable claim, they must have acted on their own
motion by instituting and conducting an effective investigation, even though
there was no formal criminal complaint made by the applicants themselves.
(ii) Whether there has been any effective investigation
201. The Court notes that no information or comments have been

forthcoming from the Government about any investigation conducted by the
54
domestic law-enforcement authorities. Even after the submission by the

third party of the documents demonstrating that there had been complaints
made to the domestic law-enforcement authorities and the documents
concerning the correspondence between the authorities of Bosnia and
Herzegovina and Azerbaijan following the legal-assistance requests, the
respondent Government, in their comments on the third-party observations,
did not submit any information concerning any domestic investigations. As
such, the Government have not demonstrated that any effective
investigation has taken place.
202. For the sake of completeness, the Court will nevertheless have
regard to the documents submitted by the third party, other material in the
case file, and the relevant international reports, in order to determine
whether there has been any effective investigation. However, it notes that
the factual information given in this respect by various sources differs and is
sometimes contradictory.
203. In particular, the letter of the Anti-Trafficking Department of
17 December 2009, examined by the first-instance court in the civil
proceedings, stated that it had not been possible to investigate any
grievances concerning Serbaz because all its workers had left the country by
26 November 2009. The contents of the letter implied that no investigation
had been instituted.
204. However, in their submissions to GRETA, the Azerbaijani
authorities provided information, which appeared to contradict the contents
of the above-mentioned letter, that the Anti-Trafficking Department had
“interviewed a significant number of workers concerned” but could not
identify any sign of trafficking and forced labour, and that “the case had
been closed” on 27 April 2011 in accordance with Article 39.1.1 of the
CCrP (see paragraph 118 above). It follows from the above information that
no criminal investigation was instituted owing to “absence of a criminal
event”.
205. More detailed information was provided in the letter of
18 November 2010 of the Anti-Trafficking Department, which was
forwarded to the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina in response to their
first legal-assistance request (see paragraphs 46-54 above). The contents of
the letter appear to contradict the Anti-Trafficking Department’s own letter
of 17 December 2009. The letter stated that the Department had “examined”
requests concerning workers of Serbaz. The letter provided mostly a very
general summary of activities of Serbaz and the living and working
conditions of its workers. It noted that it had questioned some workers who
denied any allegations of any forced labour or trafficking and essentially
stated that the entire problem was confined to some violations of
disciplinary rules by several workers, some of whom had been sent home
because of that.
55
206. It does not follow from the above-mentioned letter that any
investigation or preliminary investigation was formally instituted by the
Anti-Trafficking Department, or that any effective investigative steps have
been taken. As to workers who had been questioned, they were unnamed in
the letter and it was not mentioned when and how many of them were
questioned. It does not appear that any potential victims, including the
applicants, were informed of the “examination” conducted by the
Anti-Trafficking Department. There is no information as to any attempts to
identify and question any potential or already-identified alleged victims,
including the applicants. The Court notes that, in so far as the
Anti-Trafficking Department knew that many alleged victims had been sent
back to Bosnia and Herzegovina and was informed about the criminal
proceedings instituted in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it could have sent a
formal legal-assistance request to the authorities of that country under the
Mutual Assistance Convention, requesting the latter to identify and question
such potential victims and to provide copies of their statements to the
Azerbaijani law-enforcement authorities.
207. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that any attempts were
made to identify and question any of the allegedly implicated persons who
were nationals or residents of Azerbaijan. Despite a specific request in this
regard by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it appears that no steps
were taken to identify the person named S. Similarly, no information is
available as to any steps taken to identify at least two other Azerbaijani
nationals mentioned in the ASTRA Report (see paragraph 104 above).
208. In sum, it does not follow from the parties’ submissions or any
other material in the case file that there has been any effective criminal
investigation concerning the allegations of forced labour and human
trafficking made by the applicants.
(iii) Conclusion
209. Having regard to the fact that there has not been an effective
investigation although the matter had been sufficiently drawn to the
attention of the domestic authorities, the Court rejects the Government’s
objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and finds that the
respondent State has failed to comply with its procedural obligation to
institute and conduct an effective investigation of the applicants’ claims
concerning the alleged forced labour and human trafficking.
210. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 4 § 2 of the
Convention under its procedural limb.
56
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
211. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols
thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to
the injured party.”
A. Damage
212. Each applicant claimed 10,000 Azebaijani manats (AZN) in respect

of pecuniary damage, noting that each of them had not been paid this
amount in wages. Each applicant also claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
213. The Government submitted that the applicants had not provided
any evidence in support of their claims in respect of pecuniary damage and
considered that they should be rejected. As to the claims in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered that they were
excessive.
214. Under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, any claim for just satisfaction
must be itemised and submitted in writing together with the relevant
supporting documents or vouchers, failing which the Chamber may reject
the claim in whole or in part.
215. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considers
that the applicants might not be in possession of any documents supporting
their claims in respect of pecuniary damage. However, they could be
expected to provide some explanatory details as to any amounts of wages
that each of them had originally agreed on with their employer and what
part of those agreed wages had not been paid in each individual situation.
However, no such details have been provided. Moreover, the Court notes
that, in principle, claims in respect of pecuniary damage are made on the
basis of a precise calculation (see Shukurov v. Azerbaijan, no. 37614/11,
§ 32, 27 October 2016). Before the domestic courts, the applicants had
claimed USD 10,000 each in respect of the same pecuniary damage
(amounts of wages that each of them had not allegedly been paid), while
before the Court they claimed the same nominal amount expressed in
Azerbaijani manats. The Court notes that, these claims, having been
expressed in different currencies, actually represent different amounts,
which leads it to a conclusion that, in addition to lacking any relevant
substantiation, the claims were not made on the basis of a precise
calculation.
216. In such circumstances, the Court finds that the claims in respect of
pecuniary damage are unsubstantiated and must be rejected.
217. As for the claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court
considers that the applicants must have suffered non-pecuniary damage as a
57
result of the violation found. Making its assessment on an equitable basis,

the Court awards each applicant a sum of EUR 5,000 in respect of non-
pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
218. The applicants did not make any claims in respect of costs and
expenses. Accordingly, there is no call to make any award under this head.
C. Default interest
219. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate
should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank,
to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention

under its procedural limb;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 5,000 (five
thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Bosnia and Herzegovina
convertible marks at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until
settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a
rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank
during the default period plus three percentage points;
58
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 October 2021, pursuant to

Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
{signature_p_2}
Victor Soloveytchik Síofra O’Leary

Registrar President
59
APPENDIX
List of applicants:
No. Applicant’s Name Year of Place of residence

birth according to authority
forms
1. Seudin ZOLETIC 1973 Zivinice
2. Amer ALIBASIC 1987 Zivinice
3. Sakib ARSLANOVIC 1973 Zivinice
4. Hajrudin BEGIC 1963 Zivinice
5. Goran CATIC 1963 Gradiska
6. Amir DELIBAJRIC 1989 Zivinice
7. Radoslav DELIC N/A Gradiska
8. Tihomir DUVNJAK 1962 Gradiska
9. Miodrag GLISIC 1966 Gradiska
10. Jasmin HASANOVIC 1988 Zivinice
11. Ejub HODZIC 1965 Donji Vakuf
12. Ramiz HODZIC 1962 Zivinice
13. Ismail JUKIC 1983 Tuzla
14. Muammer KAHRIC 1990 Jajce-Sibenica
15. Miodrag KAURIN 1967 Gradiska
16. Predrag KAURIN 1972 Gradiska
17. Sveto LAZIC 1962 Gradiska
18. Sabahuddin MAKIC 1975 Jajce
19. Zeljko MATIC 1964 Gradiska
20. Becir MUJIC 1961 Sapna
21. Fehret MUSTAFICA 1968 Donji Vakuf
22. Elvedin OPARDJA 1988 Donji Vakuf
23. Resid OPARDIJA 1962 Donji Vakuf
24. Drago PERIC 1951 Gradiska
25. Suvad POTUROVIC 1968 Donji Vakuf
26. Milorad PRERAD 1987 Gradiska
27. Fadil SALKANOVIC 1953 Zivinice
28. Ibro SARIC 1955 Zivinice
29. Benjamin SILJAK 1985 Bugojno
30. Ismet SILJAK 1958 Bugojno
60
No. Applicant’s Name Year of Place of residence

birth according to authority
forms
31. Marco TAMINOZIJA (or N/A Gradiska
Marko TAMINDZIJA)
32. Goran VUJATOVIC 1966 Bos. Aleksandrovac
33. Enis ZAHIROVIC 1989 Zivinice
61

Case of Zoletic and Others v. Azerbaijan Art.4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case of Zoletic and Others v. Azerbaijan Art.4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF ZOLETIC AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

(Application no. 20116/12)

Art 4 • Positive obligations • Domestic authorities’ failure to institute and

In the case of Zoletic and Others v. Azerbaijan,

3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov.

A. The applicants’ stay in Azerbaijan

1. The applicants’ version of the events

10. In support of their submissions made to the Court, the applicants

2. The Government’s submissions concerning the events relating to the

3. The applicants’ departure from Azerbaijan

B. Judicial proceedings instituted by the applicants in Azerbaijan

17. After the applicants’ return to Bosnia and Herzegovina,

submitted a copy of the announcement it had placed in the Vergiler

2. Appellate and cassation proceedings

(v) the first-instance court’s reliance on copies of documents submitted

C. Documents concerning other complaints and requests addressed to

35. Copies of the following documents were submitted by the

D. Criminal proceedings in Bosnia and Herzegovina concerning

41. The factual circumstances described below transpire from the

1. Legal-assistance requests of the Bosnia and Herzegovina authorities

(b) The response to the first legal-assistance request

47. The Anti-Trafficking Department had examined “information and

(c) The second legal-assistance request and the response

(d) The third legal-assistance request and the response

2. Criminal convictions of four defendants in Bosnia and Herzegovina

3. Acquittal of the remaining defendants by the Court of Bosnia and

when the company had encountered financial issues, as a result of which

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND

A. The 1995 Constitution

69. Article 35 of the Constitution provides:

Article 35. Right to work

B. The Criminal Code

Article 144-1. Trafficking in human beings

Article 144-2. Forced labour

C. The 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”)

74. According to Article 38.1 of the CCrP, when the preliminary

Article 39. Circumstances excluding criminal prosecution

D. The 2000 Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”)

E. The Labour Code

79. According to Article 4 of the Labour Code, the provisions of the

organisations or Stateless persons, unless it is provided otherwise in the

Article 6. Persons to whom this Code is not applicable

F. Legislation on foreign citizens’ entry to and stay in Azerbaijan and

1. The Law on departure from and arrival in the country and on

2. The Law on registration at the place of residence and place of stay of

in Azerbaijan for a period of up to thirty days was required to apply for

3. The Law on legal status of foreigners and stateless persons of

4. The Law on labour migration of 28 October 1999

5. The Law on State fee of 4 December 2001

G. The Law on combating trafficking in human beings of 28 June

91. Article 1 of this Law provides definitions of “trafficking in human

II. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW

- the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“the

detailed receipt. In no case shall it be permitted to destroy the passport or equivalent

III. RELEVANT REPORTS CONCERNING THE SITUATION AT

A. The ASTRA Report

B. The Council of Europe: Group of Experts on Action against

C. The Council of Europe: European Commission against Racism

D. The International Labour Organisation

120. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and

the submission of the annual report of the Azerbaijan National Anti-Trafficking

I. SCOPE OF THE CASE

on Article 6 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the